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

How about Iverson on a year deal?

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

  • #61
    Re: How about Iverson on a year deal?

    Ive been very obtuse and over the top. It does warrant criticism. But when someone is outright rude in their response, Im gonna comeback on them. Ive told many people they were right in their counters, but most have just took one sentence out of 4 paragraphs and jumped all over it. I mean come on, some people tried correcting me while being outright wrong. Its too funny

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: How about Iverson on a year deal?

      isn't this the time where a moderator steps in UB and says enough?

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: How about Iverson on a year deal?

        Originally posted by gopacers1179 View Post
        but most have just took one sentence out of 4 paragraphs and jumped all over it. I mean come on.
        I understand that and I know exactly what post you're talking about. But let's be honest, when you say you're a loyal fan but then immediately afterwards state you're going to jump ship.....how are people NOT supposed to zero in on that?


        But anyway, back to AI, does anyone even see him making a roster? Cause I sure don't. I mean, the one team that would take him (Memphis) has already bought that T-Shirt. I just don't see where else he'd be wanted.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: How about Iverson on a year deal?

          Originally posted by gopacers1179 View Post
          you got me brah! one has been retired for a decade and the other was buried on one of the most successful basketball programs at the time. Arenas is a borderline SG anyways. If it doesnt hurt your head too much, try and think of some more.

          Van Exel tho.........LMAO
          Why is Van Exel a "LMAO"?

          The guy was a 2nd round pick, an All Star and was the starting PG for teams that went deep into the playoffs. During the peak of his career had multiple 16 point, and 8 assists per game seasons.

          I like how you can create your own stipulations on what players count, and which ones don't even after you've already created a filter that someone abides by. In other words, you're wrong, and just have a hard time admitting it.

          **EDIT** Oh, and I forgot, as a good friend of mine was the PG for Arizona at the time, I watched almost every Arizona game during Arenas's career there. How exactly is starting, and playing most of the game, constitute buried on the bench?
          Last edited by xBulletproof; 07-06-2010, 09:04 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: How about Iverson on a year deal?

            Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
            Why is Van Exel a "LMAO"?


            I like how you can create your own stipulations on what players count, and which ones don't even after you've already created a filter that someone abides by. In other words, you're wrong, and just have a hard time admitting it.
            I lol at Van Exel because he was around 10-12 years ago. You counter my point by mentioning just 2 relevant 2nd round pg's in the last 12 years. Both are gunners.

            Did you really think that I thought there was never a 2nd round PG starting in the league in its entire history? You make it sound every draft provides a starting PG in the 2nd round. Thats how RARE it is. Then you mention 2 and think you stumped me.


            Woody, who cares about anything you have to say? All youve done is insult me and havent even mentioned anything Pacers related. Keep up the good work!

            ***I didnt mean Arenas was buried on the bench, I meant that he was from a program loaded with talent and was overlooked. Just like Daniel Orton if he turns out to be pretty good.
            Last edited by gopacers1179; 07-06-2010, 09:18 PM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: How about Iverson on a year deal?

              Originally posted by gopacers1179 View Post
              I lol at Van Exel because he was around 10-12 years ago. You counter my point by mentioning just 2 relevant 2nd round pg's in the last 12 years. Both are gunners.

              Did you really think that I thought there was never a 2nd round PG starting in the league in its entire history? You make it sound every draft provides a starting PG in the 2nd round. Thats how RARE it is. Then you mention 2 and think you stumped me.


              Woody, who cares about anything you have to say? All youve done is insult me and havent even mentioned anything Pacers related. Keep up the good work!
              Actually I didn't make it sound like anything at all, you did. I simply answered a question that you expected everyone to come up empty on. I suppose Mario Chalmers doesn't count either. Second rounder, and has spent most of his career so far as a starter.

              That's 3 off the top of my head. Doesn't matter how far back I went, this is without even looking it up. That would mean there's obviously more to be found. I just don't need to, your point is already shot. Even if you don't like it.

              What I did look up however, was Arenas. At Arizona he spent 2 years averaging 30 minutes per game. Buried on the bench, indeed. You can't even get that right.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: How about Iverson on a year deal?

                Hey guys. Grizzlies fan here. Came on here because I was watching yall's Summer League game against the Nets.

                I saw this topic and I couldn't help but reply to it.

                DO NOT SIGN ALLEN IVERSON!

                You see what he did to us? Don't for a minute think he's changed. He said the same thing last year. Yeah, it's Allen Iverson and he's done this and he's done that in his career, but that's over. He may seem like a good pickup because he can score the ball, but it's all about him when he's on the court. He doesn't care about the win. I remember last year, he came in the game and started firing shots left and right as if his teammates were invisible. He did nothing but hinder the development of our young players. And you may say, "Well, we'll just bring him off the bench and make him our sixth man." Yeah, we tried that and all he did was ***** and complain.

                So what I'm saying is do not get AI.

                Y'all got a huge steal in the draft in Lance Stephenson who I think can run the point for y'all and be a franchise player like Tyreke Evans. Why would you want Allen Iverson to slow down the development of a future star?

                Just wanted to give y'all my two cents from a perspective that's been there before.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: How about Iverson on a year deal?

                  Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                  Actually I didn't make it sound like anything at all, you did. I simply answered a question that you expected everyone to come up empty on. I suppose Mario Chalmers doesn't count either. Second rounder, and has spent most of his career so far as a starter.

                  That's 3 off the top of my head. Doesn't matter how far back I went, this is without even looking it up. That would mean there's obviously more to be found. I just don't need to, your point is already shot. Even if you don't like it.

                  What I did look up however, was Arenas. At Arizona he spent 2 years averaging 30 minutes per game. Buried on the bench, indeed. You can't even get that right.
                  I never said Arenas was buried on the bench, I said that he was from a program loaded with talent and was overlooked. Just like Daniel Orton if he turns out to be pretty good. My point isnt "shot". 2nd rounders almost never develop into good pg's. You brought up 3 guys who were starters at point from the 2nd round. 2 were scorers>than distributors and Chalmers probably wont be a starter for much longer, hes not good. Ask the Heat fans. 3 guys in the last 15 years. None have rings and played for teams who never won much with them at the point. Thats why I say, 2nd round draft picks dont produce pg's. Im still right.
                  Last edited by gopacers1179; 07-06-2010, 09:29 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: How about Iverson on a year deal?

                    Originally posted by gopacers1179 View Post
                    I never said Arenas was buried on the bench, I said that he was from a program loaded with talent and was overlooked. Just like Daniel Orton if he turns out to be pretty good. My point isnt "shot". 2nd rounders almost never develop into good pg's. You brought up 3 guys who were starters at point from the 2nd round. 2 were scorers>than distributors and Chalmers probably wont be a starter for much longer, hes not good. Ask the Heat. 3 guys in the last 15 years. None have rings and played for teams who never won much with them at the point. Thats why I say, 2nd round draft picks dont produce pg's. Im still right.
                    Yes, because you keep on creating stipulations that will help you feel correct. I'm sure you'll continue to always be right, for the rest of your life.

                    Yeah, going to ignore. Like debating with a brick wall.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: How about Iverson on a year deal?

                      I love the idea!

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: How about Iverson on a year deal?

                        Even if Iverson could be signed to the league minimum, let alone the veteran's minimum for his years of experience, I would NOT want anything to do with him.

                        There is way too much bad history, including some pretty bogus accusations from Iverson regarding Indy and its fans. As far as I'm concerned, his visiting Indy 1-2 times per season is more than enough for me.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: How about Iverson on a year deal?

                          Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                          Even if Iverson could be signed to the league minimum, let alone the veteran's minimum for his years of experience, I would NOT want anything to do with him.

                          There is way too much bad history, including some pretty bogus accusations from Iverson regarding Indy and its fans. As far as I'm concerned, his visiting Indy 1-2 times per season is more than enough for me.
                          I def understand you not wanting him in a Pacers uniform but those racial slurs did happen from the front row years ago in the playoffs.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: How about Iverson on a year deal?

                            Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                            isn't this the time where a moderator steps in UB and says enough?
                            Agreed. dude is taking some of the fun out of these forums.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: How about Iverson on a year deal?

                              I wouldn't have wanted Iverson at any point of his professional career. He is the quintessential anti-team player. The Pacers definitely do not need an old washed up version at all. I would call it absolute foolishness.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: How about Iverson on a year deal?

                                Originally posted by gopacers1179
                                quit crying and be a man. you emo people on here need to chill out. Its a Pacers forum where opinion is welcome. Get a life if this really bothers you. If you dont like my opinion ignore me and my threads. That simple. Hell, you just joined this forum and you cry that much? LOL. SMFD!
                                Opinions are welcome, but it's hard to get your opinion out of your posts when you refuse to communicate in an intelligent manner. Exhibit A: this post. You can disagree with people all you want, but you should at least try to be adult enough to respect other people's opinions. Nothing emo about wanting that, because these types of posts make the conversation combative. The reason people come here is for the intelligent, respectful conversations that are becoming extremely rare everywhere else online.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X