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

George Hill complains about Indy on twitter

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

  • #61
    Re: George Hill complains about Indy on twitter

    Also acting like this one business defines all INdy businesses like he implies in some tweets and Cortney lee flat out says in a tweet that GH3 retweeted is moronic. We are one of the most business friendly towns in the midwest right now.


    Comment


    • #62
      Re: George Hill complains about Indy on twitter

      jmo, but it strikes me that this is much ado about nothing.

      if george hill plays for the pacers and plays well, then no one will remember or care about this flag football/twitter thing.

      if he plays for the pacers and doesn't play well, then everyone will be unhappy about his play and willing to see him go.

      and finally, if he doesn't play for the pacers, then who cares what he thinks.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: George Hill complains about Indy on twitter

        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
        Also acting like this one business defines all INdy businesses like he implies in some tweets and Cortney lee flat out says in a tweet that GH3 retweeted is moronic. We are one of the most business friendly towns in the midwest right now.


        Agreed. Aren't we the fastest growing metro area in the entire Midwest? Our business friendly attitude is a major reason for that.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: George Hill complains about Indy on twitter

          For a franchise that has been struggling, mainly due to poor character players causing PR nightmares, I'm pretty sure PS&E care what George has to say, and whether or not it makes him look like an *******.

          If he played for the Knicks, then yes, no big deal. But the Pacers have had more than their fair share of PR battles that have cost them mightly.

          It's just another reason for people to think negatively towards the franchise. If you want that opinion to change, you can't keep giving people reasons to keep thinking badly about them.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: George Hill complains about Indy on twitter

            The bottom line is these players just have waaaaaaaaaay too much time on their hands because of this lockout. Time and twitter is a dangerous mix........

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: George Hill complains about Indy on twitter

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              For a franchise that has been struggling, mainly due to poor character players causing PR nightmares, I'm pretty sure PS&E care what George has to say, and whether or not it makes him look like an *******.

              If he played for the Knicks, then yes, no big deal. But the Pacers have had more than their fair share of PR battles that have cost them mightly.

              It's just another reason for people to think negatively towards the franchise. If you want that opinion to change, you can't keep giving people reasons to keep thinking badly about them.
              I don't get what he said so bad. He doesn't want to do events or charity in Indy because his experiences have been negative? It's been more of a hassle? San Antonio or Texas was more accommodating?

              As someone who loves Indianapolis I'm not offended by this and it's not like he really isn't dong anything in Indy anymore.



              This should have zero affect on Hill's status as far as the Pacers wanting his talents. We need to quit thinking in terms of players being perfect little angels off the court. It's unrealistic and I'm tired of trying to cater to fans that may or may not support Pacers ball no matter what. This team was full of high character guys that made a playoff push and it still is. Now they need the wins for fans to come, not perfect angels.
              Last edited by billbradley; 11-23-2011, 01:15 PM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: George Hill complains about Indy on twitter

                You might not have a problem with it, but you're not the ordinary John Q. Public living in Indianapolis.

                You've got to look at the situation from the eyes of a fan that the Pacers lost, instead of a fan that stayed by their side throughout the whole roller coaster ride.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: George Hill complains about Indy on twitter

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  If he is such a sure top 10 then why did go 15th in one of the weakest drafts ever? I'm not saying that he can't be top 10, but none of the lottery teams decided to draft him in this weak draft. If he is as sure a thing as some on this board make him out to be then one of the lottery teams would have taken a chance on him in this pitiful draft.

                  Plus, will top 10 in this draft be much of an achievement anyway? It's not like we're talking about the 2008 draft here......

                  We traded the 15th pick in a weak draft and a second rounder for a guy who was a top 5/6 player on the the team with the best record in the league last year. He could maybe be a top 3/4 player on an average team like ours. Isn't Hill already what you hope Leonard will one day become? I'd be surprised if Leonard's first three seasons are as impressive as Hill's. We have enough young projects on this team as it is. Hill is already a proven player and at the same is still pretty young.

                  And who really cares about the second round pick? Yeah, you can sometimes get a valuable player in the second round but far more often than not they don't contribute a single thing when all is said and done.

                  Leonard was never going to play here anyway with Granger and George on the roster. We were merely drafting for SA at that point, as is evidenced by the fact that the trade was announced immediately. Hill gives us help at a position where we could use it. I would have loved to have him and his D in the Chicago series last year.

                  15th player in an extremely weak draft for a proven commodity who was valuable on the team with the best record in the league and who plays a position where we could use some help. Definitely one of Bird's best moves to date.
                  And what good would it do to have a proven commodity if he isn't happy to be playing here? All that would do is cause a distraction and given that, I'd rather have the guy who's redundant on this roster (and I disagree with that assertion actually since I see some potential to play the 4).

                  There have been no palpable indications from GH that he's excited to be playing here. Who's to say he won't ask for a trade at some point? Too early to say that it's one of Bird's "best moves."

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: George Hill complains about Indy on twitter

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    You might not have a problem with it, but you're not the ordinary John Q. Public living in Indianapolis.

                    You've got to look at the situation from the eyes of a fan that the Pacers lost, instead of a fan that stayed by their side throughout the whole roller coaster ride.
                    It's unrealistic to think that ordinary John Q. Public will agree with everything a player does off the court. These twitter comments should have no bearing on Hill's future as a Pacer. We will gain more fans from Hill getting Pacer wins than we will lose from Hill complaining about some indoor sports facility.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: George Hill complains about Indy on twitter

                      That's your opinion. Some people agree with you, other's disagree with you. Clearly, or there wouldn't be anyone in this thread that views it in a negative light. Yet, clearly, there are some people who view it negatively.

                      Instead of telling people how unrealistic their expectations are, if George just wouldn't have sent the tweet, none of this would have happened.

                      He's the catalyst of all of this. If he just shows a little common sense, and realizes that the only possible outcome of this is negative, and he decides not to say it, then there's nothing to discuss.

                      Whether you agree or disagree with the way other people view this incident, doesn't matter. I don't think people base their opinions on whether or not other people agree with them. It's their opinion. It's their feelings. They have just as much a right to their feelings/opinions as you do to yours.

                      That's great you think it's unrealistic. But other people disagree with you.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: George Hill complains about Indy on twitter

                        So you think it is realistic that the entire public will agree with everything all our players do off the court? C'mon.

                        I understand how people can be off-put by this. I understand how people can not be a Hill or Pacer fan because of it. But you can't make discussions about the product on the court for something so small. If people don't want to root for the Pacers because of a Hill tweet, something else would of turned them off. Maybe Lance's issues. If you create that type of culture, do you think players will want to come here?

                        The point is, it's hard enough to build a contender. You make it much harder if you want everyone to be a perfect little angel.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: George Hill complains about Indy on twitter

                          I can't wait until I don't feel like the players are walking on egg shells because of the mistakes of Pacers past.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: George Hill complains about Indy on twitter

                            I think it's absolutely one of the dumbest things I've ever heard someone say. Because he feels like he's being overcharged to play flag football, he's going to stop giving to charities? That is down right absurd.

                            I don't expect them to be angels, but you can't expect fans that have been turned off to the Pacers and their players antics for the past 5 seasons to brush this stuff off. If you continue giving them reasons to think negatively about the franchise, they'll continue to think negatively about it.

                            If you want to change the perception, then you've got to change your behavior.

                            Yes, I think it's unrealistic for others to think players should be angels. I also think it's unrealistic for you to think that everyone thinks the way you do.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: George Hill complains about Indy on twitter

                              Originally posted by Doddage View Post
                              And what good would it do to have a proven commodity if he isn't happy to be playing here? All that would do is cause a distraction and given that, I'd rather have the guy who's redundant on this roster (and I disagree with that assertion actually since I see some potential to play the 4).

                              There have been no palpable indications from GH that he's excited to be playing here. Who's to say he won't ask for a trade at some point? Too early to say that it's one of Bird's "best moves."

                              How do you know he isn't happy to be here? Because he's ticked about a flag football game?

                              So what if he doesn't like it here quite as much as SA? He would have been playing for a new contract this season so it's not like he was going to go out there and dog it just because he would rather still be in SA (which is just speculation anyway). You really think if he and the team were playing well that he wouldn't enjoy himself?

                              Barring something extremely unforeseen, this was a very good move for us. The 15th player in a very weak draft that every lottery team passed up on for a guy who was a key contributor to the team with the best record in the league. True, there is no 100% guarantee that it will work out for us, but the odds are heavily in our favor. We have enough young projects as is. George is young, but he's also already proven himself. Like I said, isn't George already what you hope Leonard will be someday? The 5th or so best player on a great team and maybe the 3rd or 4th best on an average team like ours?

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: George Hill complains about Indy on twitter

                                George has deleted many of the tweets in question from his timeline. Like I said yesterday, he just needed to vent some and now that he's cooled down, he took down most of the tweets.

                                Not a big deal.
                                "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                                "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X