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

Colin Cowherd on John Wall

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

  • #31
    Re: Colin Cowherd: John Wall can't be a great player because his dad is dead

    Leaders are born, not usually formed by their upbringing. However, a person's upbringing can lead them to wrong choices and eliminate the possibility they will do anything positive with that portion of their personality. When a father is not in the house, the mother must do both jobs...and honestly, they are not capable of doing it as well as two people in a stable relationship. The consequences and costs are almost indescribable at a macro level...

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Colin Cowherd: John Wall can't be a great player because his dad is dead

      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
      Isiah Thomas, as a player?

      No Dad, from the "projects"

      great leader on the court, legendary player
      Wow, couldn't be more wrong about his leadership.
      History is full of Isiah stories about what an egotistical aHoe he was.
      He was great player no doubt, but that doesn't make him a leader.
      Last edited by MLB007; 11-13-2010, 03:07 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Colin Cowherd: John Wall can't be a great player because his dad is dead

        I've been watching Cowherd over the past few weeks and listening to him talk about it.

        He seemed to really get pissed off for some reason about John Wall doing the "Dougie" during his first home game. That's where this whole "Cowherd vs. Wall" thing started.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Colin Cowherd: John Wall can't be a great player because his dad is dead

          Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
          Isaiah Thomas
          Larry Bird
          Lebron James

          All haven't had fathers that were really around for them compared to

          Magic Johnson
          Michael Jordan
          Kobe Bryant

          I don't really think that this argument holds much water anyway.

          As with the second quote, I'd take Rondo over Rose too, but if I were Chicago I'd be happy with what I have.
          Isiah was not a leader.
          He was a great player that lead ONLY by playing very well himself.
          Lebron bailed rather than lead.

          Not good examples for that side.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Colin Cowherd: John Wall can't be a great player because his dad is dead

            Anyone who thinks Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant were great leaders doesn't know anything about Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant.

            No one is saying that a one parent home is preferable to two parents, but the notion that a child with a single parent can't become a leader is foolish, and unsupported by the facts. Julius Caesar would disagree with Cowherd, as would the millions of other examples of great men who had the misfortune of having a father die early.

            As for the thread title being misleading, how so?

            Cowherd's stated pretty clearly that you can't be a great leader without a father and gave several (incorrect) examples. He knows John Wall's father is dead, otherwise he wouldn't have brought it up. What's the confusion?

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Colin Cowherd: John Wall can't be a great player because his dad is dead

              Simply put it is the way you have it typed out. I understand you are not using quotes so in that sense you are correct.

              However upon glancing at the digest & looking at the title it appears to be that you are saying that this is what he said & by definition he did not actually say this.

              He may have implied it, he may have given every single reason to make you think he mean it but the fact is he did not actually say it.

              The easiest way for you to correct this would be to remove the colon's and insert the words *according to* before Colin Cowherd.

              It would simply remove any confusion about it being a quote and still relays the same message that you are wanting to make now without the message itself becoming the topic of conversation.

              Just my


              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Colin Cowherd: John Wall can't be a great player because his dad is dead

                what is this nonsense?
                Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Colin Cowherd: John Wall can't be a great player because his dad is dead

                  Cowherd senses something about Wall that is just not right. That something might be that he's hanging with Gilbert Arenas. Really, Cowherd is reaching for something he values and understands. So, as usual with him, much of this is all about his huge ego. "Leadership" is the term he's using, but I don't think it's applicable. I don't know John Wall, so I can only speculate. Is a better term "character"? I think it's reasonable to use that as a possibility for what Cowherd really thinks considering he started talking about passive-aggressiveness. He was basically attacking Rose's personality and tying it to being a poor husband. That's broader than leadership...and more like a criticism of the guy's character.

                  BTW, while leaders are born, character is something developed as a child. If he's talking about character, he's probably closer to being right. Even then, there are lots of exceptions...

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Colin Cowherd: John Wall can't be a great player because his dad is dead

                    Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
                    Isaiah Thomas
                    Larry Bird
                    Lebron James

                    All haven't had fathers that were really around for them compared to

                    Magic Johnson
                    Michael Jordan
                    Kobe Bryant

                    I don't really think that this argument holds much water anyway.

                    As with the second quote, I'd take Rondo over Rose too, but if I were Chicago I'd be happy with what I have.
                    What's interesting about those six you list is that the top 3 were/so-far-are less successful than the bottom three.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Colin Cowherd: John Wall can't be a great player because his dad is dead

                      Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                      Julius Caesar would disagree with Cowherd, as would the millions of other examples of great men who had the misfortune of having a father die early.
                      Julius Ceasar may not have had a father, but he grew up in one of the richest and most powerful families in Rome and a culture that pushed boys to be highly competitive. He certainly had some kind of father figure and the right culture around him.

                      Leaders aren't born. Leaders are made by events in the life. To keep with the history lesson. If Hannibal wasn't basically raised within a military camp do you think he would have been such a great leader to almost destroy Rome just as it was taking off? Hell no he wouldn't have.

                      There are two ways you become a leader. You learn it from a father or mentor of some kind, or you are forced into it by circumstance.

                      The reason you see more leaders come from families with strong father figures that lead their family is because the child grew up learning how to lead from his father.

                      At the same time personality does have a huge effect. If someone is easily affected by what happens around them that person is going to be so all over the place that it is highly unlikely that person will ever become a leader. That is if a teams star player is one of those who sulks when things don't go his way often underachieve. The person who they should be looking for as a leader, if by nothing else than lead by example, looks like he doesn't care it is going to have an effect on everyone.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Colin Cowherd on John Wall

                        Anyway, I agree with most of you that it implies that's exactly what Cowherd said, when in fact it's an interpretation, so I edited the title.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Colin Cowherd: John Wall can't be a great player because his dad is dead

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          Leaders aren't born. Leaders are made by events in the life.
                          That's not true. Leadership is a gift or talent that comes with your DNA. It's like charisma...or humor...or intelligence. People have these gifts from the moment they are conceived...and it doesn't matter if you came from a wealthy background or the projects. Certainly people can improve upon them...and learn from others...but there are some hard limitations.

                          Character and the choices you make in life are more under everyone's control. Those are the types of things where a strong family has an impact.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Colin Cowherd: John Wall can't be a great player because his dad is dead

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            Unless you can find a quote with him actually saying that I think your thread title is a little misleading.

                            I realize you are not quoting him directly however just a quick glance makes it look like that is what he said.

                            However having said that let's all just agree that Cowherd is a douche and move on.
                            Cowherd is the preachiest blowhard in all of talk radio, I cannot stand to even hear is froggy voice.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Colin Cowherd: John Wall can't be a great player because his dad is dead

                              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                              Julius Ceasar may not have had a father, but he grew up in one of the richest and most powerful families in Rome and a culture that pushed boys to be highly competitive. He certainly had some kind of father figure and the right culture around him.

                              Leaders aren't born. Leaders are made by events in the life. To keep with the history lesson. If Hannibal wasn't basically raised within a military camp do you think he would have been such a great leader to almost destroy Rome just as it was taking off? Hell no he wouldn't have.

                              There are two ways you become a leader. You learn it from a father or mentor of some kind, or you are forced into it by circumstance.

                              The reason you see more leaders come from families with strong father figures that lead their family is because the child grew up learning how to lead from his father.

                              At the same time personality does have a huge effect. If someone is easily affected by what happens around them that person is going to be so all over the place that it is highly unlikely that person will ever become a leader. That is if a teams star player is one of those who sulks when things don't go his way often underachieve. The person who they should be looking for as a leader, if by nothing else than lead by example, looks like he doesn't care it is going to have an effect on everyone.
                              Well said.
                              Nobody is saying you can't be a leader if you didn't have a strong father figure.
                              But it's a lot more likely if you do.
                              Even if that person is a coach or uncle or something.
                              Just as nobody learns to work hard by osmosis, you learn to lead by seeing others do it first.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Colin Cowherd on John Wall

                                Ignoring the father angle for a moment, if I was Washington I'd really hate his point about leaders hang with leaders. That's less controversial, right?

                                The idea of my franchise-saving #1 pick spending all of his time with Gilbert Arenas would scare the crap out of me.
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X