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

Announcing the newest addition(s) to Pacers Digest

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

  • #16
    Re: Announcing the newest addition(s) to Pacers Digest

    Originally posted by rexnom View Post
    Is there any way to feature the main board(s) more?
    I'm only highlighting the sports boards because that (Pacers/NBA) is the focus of the site and the boards.

    The front page is not trying to represent every aspect of the forum.

    Originally posted by rexnom View Post
    This way it seems like the Digest is privileging some members and their contributions over others.
    This is an ungenerous way of describing the situation.

    I picked these people to ask them if they would be willing to produce articles for the website because they demonstrated they could produce interesting and/or educational, high-quality sports content that PD members and lurkers appreciate and would want to read, so I asked them if they would join me as a sort of writing staff to do this.

    So, yes, their work will be highlighted because it deserves to be highlighted, and I'm very happy they agreed to join me to do this.

    I don't appreciate characterizing it like this is some petty game of playing favorites done for no reason other than to form a clique. I'm disappointed because this is meant to be a happy announcement and I shouldn't have to defend it from a mis-characterization like that.

    If you have constructive suggestions, please let me know and I will consider them, but this isn't going to work if it feels like an accusation.

    I wonder if this won't make it more intimidating to join and post as a result.
    It really shouldn't, but I suppose for some it might. I've never understood that mentality, but I acknowledge some people can feel that way.

    Maybe I can create a message to encourage people to join us and to interact on the forums.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Announcing the newest addition(s) to Pacers Digest

      Also, if I can make another suggestion, the news headlines should probably be first on the page. I would think that it would be the most important section, and since people like to quickly scan headlines for the most recent news, that section shouldn't be "below the fold".

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Announcing the newest addition(s) to Pacers Digest

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        Will the threads still show up in the main forum or are these essentially independent blogs with their own threads?

        I am happy to see those folks get recognized, but I usually skip the main page and come straight to the Pacers forum - is there any way to make sure we still see the updates from here?
        This is something that needs to be addressed because, yes, they are meant to be more like independent blogs/articles.

        One way or another, we need to announce new content on the Pacers board, but I'm not yet sure the best way to do that. Thoughts?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Announcing the newest addition(s) to Pacers Digest

          Originally posted by Rupert Stilinski View Post
          I'm a new member, but I have a suggestion nonetheless. I found this site, and stayed, because it was the best Pacers FORUM out there. Perhaps it would be better to make the link to the forums much more visible and easier to find. That's why I'm here, and I'm guessing there are many in the same boat.
          I agree the navigation could/should be done better. I'm using the default method right now, but I should be able to come up with something better later on. Probably something with graphics to make it stand out.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Announcing the newest addition(s) to Pacers Digest

            Originally posted by tsm612 View Post
            On the homepage where Tbird's 2010 draft analysis is located, what if it was a link to a sub forum where all of the draft analyses are located, as opposed to just the most recent one. It would be nice to have all of those articles together and easily accessible without having to search for them in the rest of the forum.
            Agreed. I will move his earlier ones to his section as well.

            Perhaps I should put the 2008 and 2009 ones there while I'm at it?

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Announcing the newest addition(s) to Pacers Digest

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              It really shouldn't, but I suppose for some it might. I've never understood that mentality, but I acknowledge some people can feel that way.

              Maybe I can create a message to encourage people to join us and to interact on the forums.
              It's not really an issue with mentality as to why people would be intimidated. It's an issue with being user friendly. As it stands now, there is no place on the homepage where it says "log in" or "sign up", and the only link to the main forum is through the site map. If I were to visit the site as it is now, I probably wouldn't sign up since there isn't a consistent form of navigation. The average internet user only spends a few seconds on a Web site while they're searching for information and have no time for sites that make them think.

              Edit: So I don't come off too strong, I should mention that I'm a Web developer. If you'd like my input, I'd be happy to help. If not, just tell me to **** off.
              Last edited by tsm612; 06-07-2010, 11:28 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Announcing the newest addition(s) to Pacers Digest

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                This is something that needs to be addressed because, yes, they are meant to be more like independent blogs/articles.

                One way or another, we need to announce new content on the Pacers board, but I'm not yet sure the best way to do that. Thoughts?
                I think the easiest least intrusive way would be to create another subforum collecting all the content. If you wanted to highlight it more you could create a whole content board.
                Play Mafia!
                Twitter

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Announcing the newest addition(s) to Pacers Digest

                  I appreciate the feedback.

                  As I tried to say in the first post, this is still under construction and wasn't really meant to be public yet, so I'm totally open to constructive feedback to make it better.

                  I'm using software I haven't used much before, so I'm not comfortable with it all yet. It appears it allows me to have a box on each page that would acknowledge you as a logged-in user, and if you're not, it's a box for logging in/registering.

                  Check now to see what it currently looks like. Does that help? I'd imagine it needs to stay up (in one form or another).

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Announcing the newest addition(s) to Pacers Digest

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    I appreciate the feedback.
                    I really love seeing my avatar on the right-side of the page on the Front Page.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Announcing the newest addition(s) to Pacers Digest

                      Originally posted by Pig Nash View Post
                      I think the easiest least intrusive way would be to create another subforum collecting all the content. If you wanted to highlight it more you could create a whole content board.
                      That's actually how it already works, but I have the boards themselves hidden right now because the idea was to just use them for the easy storage and an easy way for the writers to post new content.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Announcing the newest addition(s) to Pacers Digest

                        Yeah that helps a lot. While I agree that the focus should be on sports on the front page, I don't see the harm in listing all the boards in the site navigation box.
                        Play Mafia!
                        Twitter

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Announcing the newest addition(s) to Pacers Digest

                          Originally posted by Pig Nash View Post
                          I think it should take you to the forum so the biggest most prominent link takes you to the most important part of the site.
                          So the question is, which part of the site would be most important, the blogs or the rest of the forum?

                          I just posted a reply to T-Bird's Udoh analysis and now moderators will have to review posts before they show up on the blogs, apparently, which is no problem in and of itself. However, it will be burdensome to whoever reviews posts, and probably will slow down discussions, and could lead to the erroneous perception that content will only be posted that fits the viewpoint of the owner of the blog, which I am sure is not the intent whatsoever.

                          I'm just not sure what segregating the "blogs" (or whatever they are) from the rest of the board is intended to accomplish to start with. If it is with an eye towards eventually somehow generating revenue, whether it be through advertising or some sort of "insider" type membership fee whereby T-Bird's posts (and whoever else are content providers) are only accessible to those who pay, this move is understandable, and I would hope it generates enough revenue because I realize that this board continues to have operating costs associated with it. However, it may decrease overall traffic IMO due to many people not wanting to pay to come to a fan site whose best posters are content providers for "insider" style blogs.

                          But, I don't have any idea if that is the intention here, or not.

                          IMO, PD has its foundation in being an open and intelligent collection of fans of the Indiana Pacers who provide their opinions and insights freely whether or not those opinions and insights are reflective of either "reality" (whatever that is) or whether or not those opinions reflect the viewpoint of the owners of the site or the moderators who volunteer their time to keep things together. There are reasons I come here as opposed to the Star or RealGM. The relative freedom of the expression of opinions and the timely flow of both insights and information from the world of both the Pacers and the NBA are combined here in a unique fashion that is not found elsewhere and is a delicate balance that has been maintained very well, IMO.

                          I realize that this is a work in progress, and look forward to seeing what all changes happen as time continues to pass. Not all of us will like whatever changes come to pass, but hopefully enough will to further improve what is the best Pacers site on the internet, Pacers Digest!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Announcing the newest addition(s) to Pacers Digest

                            Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                            I just posted a reply to T-Bird's Udoh analysis and now moderators will have to review posts before they show up on the blogs
                            That is not intentional; I will fix that.

                            *edit* Try again now.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Announcing the newest addition(s) to Pacers Digest

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              This is something that needs to be addressed because, yes, they are meant to be more like independent blogs/articles.

                              One way or another, we need to announce new content on the Pacers board, but I'm not yet sure the best way to do that. Thoughts?
                              like bills, i start from the main forum page too, so i tend to miss things posted on the front page.

                              suggestion: have the new content formatted as articles, with no discussion. just a link at the bottom to the corresponding thread in the forum. each time an article is posted, a new thread gets created in the main forum, which serves as the discussion thread. this way, people who run across the article can join the forum for discussion if they wish, while forumers still get the same content the old way. what do you think?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Announcing the newest addition(s) to Pacers Digest

                                I have no problem with the existence of the blogs or anything like that.

                                I just wish they were posted simultaneously as a thread on the main board. The way message boards work best for me, is that they behave like a vertical crawl. I only have to refresh, not click back and forth. The blogs are cool, but since I'll spend most of my time on the main board, I fear I (and others like me) will have a reduction of awareness and participation in those threads. Out of sight, out of mind, as they say.

                                EDIT - I see several people have already stated this. I don't read threads, I just post in them.
                                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X