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

Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

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

  • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    Originally posted by Shade
    Yeah, I know. I'd probably have better luck trying to drown a fish.
    Hey, I almost did that to the fish in the picture. He weighed over 25# and I had 8# test line on the reel. It took quite awhile to get him in and he was totally exhausted. I had to hold his tail and force water through his gills to revive him.

    Hey, that is better than mouth-to-mouth.

    I would rather be the hammer than the nail

    Comment


    • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

      The positives I guess is Fred Jones can bow be the primary backup to Reggie while Jackson starts at SF. There's no doubt about it Jackson can make up for a lot of Rons missed offense, but noone can make up for that missing defense.

      Comment


      • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

        I wonder if Reggie hangs around one more year now - guess a discussion for another day
        Heywoode says... work hard man.

        Comment


        • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

          Originally posted by Doug in CT
          I wonder if Reggie hangs around one more year now - guess a discussion for another day
          It won't matter. There will be a lock-out now thanks to Stern's stubborn ego.

          Comment


          • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

            Originally posted by Alabama-Redneck
            There again, 2 different incidents must have been occurring at the same time on Nov. 19th in the Palace as the tapes I have seen does not show things the way you describe them but I would really like to see your version
            You did not see JO run from halfcourt and coldcock that guy?



            Originally posted by Alabama-Redneck
            And you are sure the only thing on this guy's mind was to try to get his friend away from Ron??? They probably only came onto the court to get an autograph, right.
            Are you are sure the only thing JO was thinking was self defense?

            Comment


            • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

              I personally will be glad if JO comes back. It gives me a reason to watch the Pacers/Pistons matchup on Saturday. I had planned on skipping that game and watching Shaq vs Kobe. Can't really comment on the rest of what is going on because the whole message board would be mad at me again :-D

              Comment


              • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

                Originally posted by Ithrewthecup
                You did not see JO run from halfcourt and coldcock that guy?



                Are you are sure the only thing JO was thinking was self defense?
                Yes, I saw JO hit the guy and no, I have no idea what was on JO's mind but I have been in a "few" altercations and I know what I was thinking.

                I just think you need to revisit the film and watch what transpires before each thing happened. There are always circumstances leading up to everything. I am not trying to justify anything but the discussion, at least, needs to be on a level playing field.

                I would rather be the hammer than the nail

                Comment


                • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

                  Makes no sense to me at all. I'd love to have JO back early, but criminally JO was charged with 2 counts of assault got 20 games, Ron got the whole season and Jax 25 games and only one count each. AJ one count 5 games, Harrison one count no suspension. How the **** does any of that compute. Legally Ron did less than any one of them.

                  The precedence has already been set with Mad Max of 10 games and he was not even hit first.

                  There is no way anyone can say this has been fair and balanced or makes any ****ing sense.

                  If this is the best the players union can do, they are a joke.
                  "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                  Comment


                  • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

                    Originally posted by lschmidt
                    Pacers fan in Iowa here. Don't typically have time to post as I catch up on Pacers new at work. Since everyone is interested in how NBA (Stern) will respond, here it is - they are taking it to court. This is quoted from the updated article on ESPN...hearing is scheduled for tomorrow 10 a.m.

                    "We have consistently maintained that the arbitrator has no legitimate role in this matter," NBA deputy commissioner Russ Granik said. "While we obviously agree with Mr. Kaplan's decision upholding virtually all of the suspensions, we don't agree with his conclusion that the conduct did not occur on the playing court, and we have no choice other than to challenge it in federal court."

                    I think that most are too busy having their spitting matches to notice that Stern is fighting the suspensions.

                    The meeting is tomorrow at 10 a.m. My guess is the ruling is upheld and Stern can throw up his hands and say "We disagree but must abide by the court's decision."

                    My only concern is what if the court rules that they need more time to consider the appeal decision? What happens then? Will J.O. be able to play in the meantime?

                    This whole situation is draining and rediculous. IMO, Stern would be more than happy to drag this thing out for a few more weeks.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

                      Originally posted by naptownmenace
                      I think that most are too busy having their spitting matches to notice that Stern is fighting the suspensions.

                      The meeting is tomorrow at 10 a.m. My guess is the ruling is upheld and Stern can throw up his hands and say "We disagree but must abide by the court's decision."

                      My only concern is what if the court rules that they need more time to consider the appeal decision? What happens then? Will J.O. be able to play in the meantime?

                      This whole situation is draining and rediculous. IMO, Stern would be more than happy to drag this thing out for a few more weeks.
                      IF the court decides to take it's sweet time the PA can make a case for JO playing while this decision is pending and will most likely get that decision.

                      As I said in other posts, IF the arbitration is not upheld, then he can still sit out the rest of the suspension, if it is however he can not get those games he didn't play back, which usually is the reasoning of the courts.
                      So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                      If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                      Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                      Comment


                      • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

                        Originally posted by naptownmenace
                        I think that most are too busy having their spitting matches to notice that Stern is fighting the suspensions.

                        The meeting is tomorrow at 10 a.m. My guess is the ruling is upheld and Stern can throw up his hands and say "We disagree but must abide by the court's decision."

                        My only concern is what if the court rules that they need more time to consider the appeal decision? What happens then? Will J.O. be able to play in the meantime?

                        This whole situation is draining and rediculous. IMO, Stern would be more than happy to drag this thing out for a few more weeks.

                        Do you really want JO to play while the case is dragging along? Let's say the case does drag along and they say that JO can in fact play while this is going on. What if the ruling says that JO has to finish out his suspension term? Doesn't that hurt your team more because he has to serve his time further along in the season?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

                          Wouldn't we just forfeit any games he does play in? If, in fact, the suspensions are upheld?
                          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                          And life itself, rushing over me
                          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                          Comment


                          • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

                            Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                            Wouldn't we just forfeit any games he does play in? If, in fact, the suspensions are upheld?
                            You make a good point. I guess it could be handled like that. But that would be even worse too though. That would be 15 str8 loses for your team, no matter if you won them or lost them.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

                              Yeah, that's what I'm getting at... if that's the scenario you've got to be certain that either (1) you're going to win the case, so the risk of a ten game losing streak is mitigated, or (2) its likely that you'll lose all ten games anyway, so why not take the risk...
                              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                              And life itself, rushing over me
                              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                              Comment


                              • Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

                                of course the piston trolls have to come over and rub it in. You ****s arent done yet. We arent finished with you yet...you still havent beat us yet this year. See you saturday..bring your dresses...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X