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

Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this) :)

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

  • #76
    Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    The discussion took place about 10-15 games into the season. So now you're position is that Danny really wasn't playing that good of defense, just 10-15 teams full of players who Danny guarded all had off nights for those numbers to arise?



    Like I said, no substance. You throw crap out just to see if it sticks to the wall.
    You are right Corey Brewer burning his a$$ didn't happen, Talking about not having an argument here, hey it's cool you were wrong and I was right no need to get all mad.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

      Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
      Those wild and crazy Indianapolis Star reporters. Always fabricating stories without any truth them.
      Have you heard the controversy around Kravitz saying Peyton's arm is a "noodle?"
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

        Originally posted by Reginald View Post
        Which part of "[in] last year's playoffs against the Chicago Bulls Granger averaged 21.6 points and never scored fewer than 19 against the best defensive team in the league" did you not understand?

        Kravitz nailed this one. Internet fanboys are generally clueless when it comes to Granger. If/when Danny gets traded, that team you saw versus Miami and Cleveland is the Pacers team we'll get, and the Pacers team we'll deserve.
        The Pacers team we'll "deserve"?? That's a stupid thing to say. Simply because there is a part of the fan base that doesn't think so highly of one of the players, we "deserve" a team that loses badly to teams like Cleveland?

        Idiotic. What paying fans deserve is the best team that can be fielded by management. Players come and go. Eventually Granger will go. When that happens, the paying fans will still "deserve" to see the best team that can be fielded by management.


        Name-calling signature removed

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          You are right Corey Brewer burning his a$$ didn't happen, Talking about not having an argument here, hey it's cool you were wrong and I was right no need to get all mad.
          See what you do? You say one thing, like Danny's had one good game. Then Anthem asks "Just one?" You then say, no not one, but only one in a really long time.

          I point out that he had another good game just two games before. You then, in a thread talking about Danny being a scorer, bring up good defense.

          I bring up how dismissive you were earlier this year when Danny was playing great defense, and the fact that you dismissed all the other quantitive stats that went along with it, and only focused that we were using blocks and steals.

          Today, you once again dismiss all those other points and just try to say that he only got those numbers because all those players had bad games. And they just happened to be against Danny.

          Now when I point out the fact that your argument is hinging around "they might have had off games" and how horrible of an argument it is, you bring up Corey Brewer.

          It's called moving the goalposts, and you're quite good at it.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

            Originally posted by Reginald View Post
            Which part of "[in] last year's playoffs against the Chicago Bulls Granger averaged 21.6 points and never scored fewer than 19 against the best defensive team in the league" did you not understand?

            Kravitz nailed this one. Internet fanboys are generally clueless when it comes to Granger. If/when Danny gets traded, that team you saw versus Miami and Cleveland is the Pacers team we'll get, and the Pacers team we'll deserve.
            I saw this earlier and didn't think much of it until everybody started thanking you for it, but you make it sound like people are trying to give him away for nothing. Your post doesn't make sense.

            BTW Danny played in the Miami game, and it was over before he got hurt.

            edit: or what Banta said

            Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
            You are one of those people aren't you?
            People, just because a player doesn't make defensive team or DPOY doesn't make him a defensive liability. I would take Danny over all but a select few defensive wings in the NBA there are only a few I wouldn't:
            Deng (That's damn close though)
            Lebron
            Durant
            Iggy
            Danny is a top tier Wing. Not a superstar but one of the best in the league no doubt. Defensively he is better or as good as: Melo, Pierce, Hill...
            You're leaving out a few. Gerald Wallace, Shane Battier, and Tony Allen are all better but I get your point. He certainly capable of being a top tier defensive wing.
            Last edited by CJ Jones; 02-17-2012, 03:29 PM.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

              [QUOTE=Since86;1376514]
              See what you do? You say one thing, like Danny's had one good game. Then Anthem asks "Just one?" You then say, no not one, but only one in a really long time.
              I made the mistake of saying one, I mean to say one in a long time and I mean a total game, not a "Since86 good game" either.


              I point out that he had another good game just two games before. You then, in a thread talking about Danny being a scorer, bring up good defense.
              The thread is talking about Danny in general is not just his offense, go back and read it again.

              I bring up how dismissive you were earlier this year when Danny was playing great defense, and the fact that you dismissed all the other quantitive stats that went along with it, and only focused that we were using blocks and steals.
              Danny was never playing great defense, the "Danny is now a great defender because the stats say so thing" was way overrated, he was leaving guys open they were just not making the shots.



              Today, you once again dismiss all those other points and just try to say that he only got those numbers because all those players had bad games. And they just happened to be against Danny.
              All those players had bad games because they were bad players to begging with, who has he play againts that is as good as him? the out of shape and now in shape Pierce? Lebron? the guy who burned his a$$?... If he is a great as a defender as you think he is why is he getting burned by COREY FREAKING BREWER and the other scrubs? anybody could collect DPOY honors if they get to guard scrubs in every game.

              Now when I point out the fact that your argument is hinging around "they might have had off games" and how horrible of an argument it is, you bring up Corey Brewer.

              It's called moving the goalposts, and you're quite good at it.
              Maybe the goalposts is moving for you because you can't see it crearly
              Last edited by vnzla81; 02-17-2012, 03:12 PM.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                This thread makes me almost as sick as the 5 game losing streak we just endured.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                  Originally posted by HickeyS2000 View Post
                  This thread makes me almost as sick as the 5 game losing streak we just endured.
                  Well said. That makes your stance on Danny perfectly clear.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    I made the mistake of saying one, I mean to say one in a long time and I mean a total game, not a "Since86 good game" either.
                    Here is why people can't take you seriously. I can go back 16 days and say Danny had a good game against Minny (36 ppg,, FG% .474, 3P% .625, and 7 rbs) and held his man under 40% and you have the nerve to say "in a long time".

                    The problem is that you exaggerate and very few people can take take you seriously because of it.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                      Has to be one of the least effective thread titles in a while.
                      You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                        Here is why people can't take you seriously. I can go back 16 days and say Danny had a good game against Minny (36 ppg,, FG% .474, 3P% .625, and 7 rbs) and held his man under 40% and you have the nerve to say "in a long time".

                        The problem is that you exaggerate and very few people can take take you seriously because of it.
                        Thanks god I get to watch the games and not the stats and I think I have a tear in my eye because some people in some blog don't take me seriously.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          Thanks god I get to watch the games and not the stats and I think I have a tear in my eye because some people in some blog don't take me seriously.
                          No but it just makes you a bait poster that very little people care for on a largerly freindly message board.

                          edit: Mods you can delete this but its the truth.
                          Last edited by Gamble1; 02-17-2012, 03:47 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                            Here is why people can't take you seriously. I can go back 16 days and say Danny had a good game against Minny (36 ppg,, FG% .474, 3P% .625, and 7 rbs) and held his man under 40% and you have the nerve to say "in a long time".

                            The problem is that you exaggerate and very few people can take take you seriously because of it.
                            I understand where you're coming from, but it seems like a few people want to nit pick at some of the small inaccuracies in his posts and use those to bash him instead looking at the point he's trying to make. That's why I've made the comment before about him being the PD punching bag.

                            I was actually trying to step in and take some of the blows for him in this thread but I couldn't get anybody to throw one at me.

                            I'm new though... so I probably don't know what the hell I'm talking about.
                            Last edited by CJ Jones; 02-17-2012, 05:39 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                              Originally posted by vnzla81
                              If by not been a homer I'm hated I don't care.
                              I didn't say hate. When you bait people it sort of lowers the quality of this message board and you do that often enough for a guy like me who has never told anybody this before to please stop.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                                All those in favor of making an Argument Thread so if people want to go back and forth they can take it there and we don't have to sift through pages of "I'm right"..."No, I'm right"..."Well you suck"...."Nuh uh, you do"

                                When we see a thread headed this way someone can just post: Take it to the Argument Thread.
                                I know "Sleeze" is spelled incorrectly. I spell it this way because it's based on a name.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X