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

ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

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

  • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
    The refs aren't the players' bosses. They are co-workers at best.
    "Boss" is probably not the best word. More like babysitter or policeman. Either way the refs are certainly in an authority position over the players.

    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
    You would not make it very far in customer service. The customer IS your boss.

    And like I said in the previous post, I completely disagree with the notion that the refs are the players' bosses..
    You would not make it very far in management. Once a customer becomes belligerent to one of your employees for simply doing their job, that customer is no longer an asset.

    And let's be honest, is the guy Noah cussed at really going to stop supporting the NBA because of it? Doubtful. He probably thought it was a cool experience.

    Comment


    • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

      Well I'm the leasing manager of a multi million dollar real estate ownership group who has owned and managed real estate for over 50 years...so I must be doing something right.

      If your customer is becoming belligerent to one of your employees, you need to ask yourself why is this happening? What is this employee doing to cause this? It is rarely, if ever, truly the customer's fault.

      This doesn't really translate to sports, but the point is, a butt in the seat is still a butt in the seat and should take precedence over anything else. They are your revenue stream. You can't insult them. You can't call them homophobic words. You just can't do it. To me it is much more reasonable in the heat of the moment to say something inappropriate to a co-worker or even your boss than it is to say something inappropriate to a customer.


      Comment


      • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
        If your customer is becoming belligerent to one of your employees, you need to ask yourself why is this happening? What is this employee doing to cause this? It is rarely, if ever, truly the customer's fault.

        This doesn't really translate to sports, but the point is, a butt in the seat is still a butt in the seat and should take precedence over anything else.
        This viewpoint is so myopic it loses any real world relevance. I feel like I'm listening to Ricky Bobby scream "If you're not first, you're last!" Anyway, I feel I have contributed to the de-rail of the game thread quite long enough.

        Comment


        • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

          A fan was at the game called in a Miami sports radio show and broke down what was said between Noah and the fan(link to listen inside)

          http://www.terezowens.com/verbal-exc...aled/#comments

          Comment


          • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

            I agree with both sides here, but I see why the fine is what it is.

            First off, he is not Kobe.

            Second off, fair or not, NBA refs are protected by the league. You can argue that fans should have that blanket protection, not refs, but one could easily argue the refs have to be protected to keep them for getting intimidated or caught up in other schemes (Tim D)

            As far as the issue itself, it once again proves my point that I think that sports fans in general are asshats when they get a little too much to drink (not sure if this was the case here) and it seems the more a person pays, the more likely they are to feel like "Well I paid X amount, so I can do whatever the hell I want"

            Lastly, I strongly disagree with this post TJ:
            It is rarely, if ever, truly the customer's fault.

            Working in all diffrent lines of work, including CS, I can say, yes, the customer is sometimes simply wrong. They may hate it, they make raise a huge fuss, but sometimes the company is right and the customer is wrong.

            Comment


            • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

              And yet you still cannot under any circumstances call them a ***got. The company still needs to find a way to meet in the middle and at least soothe the customer's ego.

              Still, the precedent here is that it is a bigger deal to cuss out a ref than a fan with homophobic remarks. Not the best message to send IMO.


              Comment


              • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                And yet you still cannot under any circumstances call them a ***got. The company still needs to find a way to meet in the middle and at least soothe the customer's ego.

                Still, the precedent here is that it is a bigger deal to cuss out a ref than a fan with homophobic remarks. Not the best message to send IMO.
                I agree.

                Though I think 50K sends a strong message, I see your point. Though I would argue comparing Noah vs Kobe is not a fair thing to do

                I am listening to the fan now, he could be full of crap but so far the guy sounds like he was just having some good natured ribbing

                Comment


                • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

                  Tonight Miami or Chicago, i think Miami is the future NBA Champion, but im feeling that the Chicago is gonna win tonight

                  Comment


                  • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

                    You cuss at your boss you get into trouble, you cuss at a customer you get fired. The customer is always right. Even when they are being a dick, you stand there and take it. You try and calm the situation. You never, NEVER insult them in any way. This is customer relations 101 here.

                    Comment


                    • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

                      Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                      You cuss at your boss you get into trouble, you cuss at a customer you get fired. The customer is always right. Even when they are being a dick, you stand there and take it. You try and calm the situation. You never, NEVER insult them in any way. This is customer relations 101 here.
                      Drunk verbally abusive customers are always kicked out of whatever establishment, so no the customer is not always right lol


                      I think we all over-analyze stuff like this almost all the time. "is it too harsh, is it not harsh enough?" etc. Hey, the NBA fined the player what they thought was appropriate. He was punished, and that should be the end of it.

                      It would be nice if the NBA was a bit more open about how they came up with their fines, and would come up with a set number for each offense sure... I think we all disagree with how arbitrary it is. I feel this is unfair to the players. But hey Noah was punished and I think the only message that is being sent out to the players is do not use homophobic slurs. That is good message to send is it not?

                      Comment


                      • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        You would not make it very far in customer service. The customer IS your boss.
                        The "customer is always right" attitude has no place in any real work establishment. To quote "Curb Your Enthusiasm," the customer is usually wrong, and an a**hole.

                        I would agree that the refs aren't technically the players' "bosses", but they regulate the players in a workplace. They punish and reward them. They are supervisors, but they are also accountable to their own bosses. The word boss has a superlative connotation, so when people hear "boss" and "ref" they naturally say no because refs are powerless in so many ways.

                        Comment


                        • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

                          I definitely don't agree with anyone who says the customer is always right. Maybe it depends on your line of work, though.

                          Comment


                          • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            I definitely don't agree with anyone who says the customer is always right. Maybe it depends on your line of work, though.
                            I look at it as more of an idea that needs to be followed. Of course the customer can be wrong. But its an idea that helps you handle the situation in a better way imo. You never have the right to call a customer a ****ing ***got. No matter what they say to you.

                            Comment


                            • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

                              Does Miami have the loudest fans in the NBA?

                              Comment


                              • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

                                Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                                I look at it as more of an idea that needs to be followed. Of course the customer can be wrong. But its an idea that helps you handle the situation in a better way imo. You never have the right to call a customer a ****ing ***got. No matter what they say to you.
                                What if two verbally self-described "***gots" come into your store and start doing it? j/k

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X