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

Hill Talks to Wells About Fans

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

  • #61
    Re: Hill Talks to Wells About Fans

    Only on PD, the self-proclaimed best basketball forum on the Internet, can you find a first page of a thread like this full of defensive, reactionary posts blaming a player for having thoughts of his own and wishing for a home crowd that actually cheers for, you know, the home team. Tsk, tsk George Hill. If only you were a completely infallible player or an emotionally devoid robot then it wouldn't matter how many fans you have.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Hill Talks to Wells About Fans

      Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
      Only on PD, the self-proclaimed best basketball forum on the Internet, can you find a first page of a thread like this full of defensive, reactionary posts blaming a player for having thoughts of his own and wishing for a home crowd that actually cheers for, you know, the home team. Tsk, tsk George Hill. If only you were a completely infallible player or an emotionally devoid robot then it wouldn't matter how many fans you have.
      I think most people acknowledge that the Pacers fanbase as a whole isn't very good (there are GREAT fans, but the fanBASE is weak). That's not in contention.

      The point of contention is that Hill comes off a game in which he plays no semblance of defense, and then would suggest the team was affected by the Lakers fans in the crowd. As opposed to being affected, you know, by the matador defense on Nash.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Hill Talks to Wells About Fans

        I think some people here are taking Hill's comments personally, but I think he's referring more to the casual fanbase. If you're on PD you're probably a diehard, so I doubt he's referring to anyone here.

        And he's right. Maybe complaining to Wells about it wasn't the best way to handle the situation, but it's clearly been building all season and last night was the last straw.

        It's also important for the team, however, to recognize that there are a ton of Lakers bandwagoners in every city. That's just the way it is in Stern's NBA.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Hill Talks to Wells About Fans

          Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
          Reggie Miller didn't have an urban hip-hop vibe to him and that is what turns off the predominantly white conservative population in Indiana.

          Black athletes in this state have to act white to get accepted by the larger population. It's a shame but that is the reality.
          I guarantee you that's true in any state with a rural, white, conservative population.

          You don't think white athletes have to adopt urban, city, hip-hop mannerisms to be more accepted by a large inner-city fanbase? How easy has it been for the NBA to penetrate the Latino market without adapting some things to the potential Latino fanbases in San Antonio and Miami?

          Whether it's race or culture or this whole thing that there is no culture only race, when someone is different from the majority it is easier to change aspects you have control over to fit in than it is to get that majority to change. That could be good, bad, or just human nature. Sometimes it's worth standing up for. Sometimes it's not.

          That said, though, given all those very white Lakers fans in the Fieldhouse last night, which player were they cheering for that was their supposed white-bread non-hip-hop cultural icon? You can't mean MWP or Kobe Bryant. Were they all just closet Steve Blake fans?
          BillS

          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Hill Talks to Wells About Fans

            Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
            Only on PD, the self-proclaimed best basketball forum on the Internet, can you find a first page of a thread like this full of defensive, reactionary posts blaming a player for having thoughts of his own and wishing for a home crowd that actually cheers for, you know, the home team. Tsk, tsk George Hill. If only you were a completely infallible player or an emotionally devoid robot then it wouldn't matter how many fans you have.
            I'm not sure how this follows. If nothing else, when you consider we've heavily discussed attendance issues ourselves, it shows we have the ability to put comments and expressions in context and think about how they actually impact the problem rather than just filling a thread full of "me, too".
            BillS

            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
              Only on PD, the self-proclaimed best basketball forum on the Internet, can you find a first page of a thread like this full of defensive, reactionary posts blaming a player for having thoughts of his own and wishing for a home crowd that actually cheers for, you know, the home team. Tsk, tsk George Hill. If only you were a completely infallible player or an emotionally devoid robot then it wouldn't matter how many fans you have.
              I agree 100% What's wrong with an Indiana Pacer who would like to be cheered for in his own arena, and in his own home state no less. Especially when the cheers for Ron Artest are louder than for our "Hometown Hero".

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Hill Talks to Wells About Fans

                Originally posted by Shade View Post
                Maybe complaining to Wells about it wasn't the best way to handle the situation,
                Thank you, George doesn't get it.
                You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Hill Talks to Wells About Fans

                  Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
                  I think most people acknowledge that the Pacers fanbase as a whole isn't very good (there are GREAT fans, but the fanBASE is weak). That's not in contention.

                  The point of contention is that Hill comes off a game in which he plays no semblance of defense, and then would suggest the team was affected by the Lakers fans in the crowd. As opposed to being affected, you know, by the matador defense on Nash.
                  This is the kind of defensive thing I'm talking about. He's expressing his frustrations with the fanbase, not blaming them for the loss, but the whole first page of this thread takes that route immediately, and rides that high horse instead of looking at the people to the right and left of them. He didn't lay his poor defense on the feet of the crowd, nowhere does he say that. But these great diehards, the "good" portion of the fanbase twists his words to feel better about themselves.

                  Now, having read the rest of the thread I admire the guys who actually addressed what he was talking about instead of using his words as an excuse to make snide, back-biting comments about his defense last night.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Hill Talks to Wells About Fans

                    Originally posted by rock747 View Post


                    3:57 mark. George Hill would have been one of those same "bandwagon" fans when he lived in Indy? ouch.
                    Nothing else matters at this point in time. This video with his own words put the nail in the coffin of his diatribe last night, in fact I think George owes an apology after listening to this.

                    He wasn't a Pacers fan he just liked certain players.

                    Die hards have every right to complain if they want, people on here who live elsewhere & can't attend games but faithfully follow the team can gripe.

                    But I'm sorry if you are on video telling your new team that you didn't grow up a Pacers fan but cheered certain players then I'm sorry you have lost the right to chastize your fellow Hoosiers who did nothing different than you did when you were here as a non-player.

                    I want to both thank you and curse you for finding that video because it shed the light of truth on this subject but I can't say I'm happy to hear it to be honest with you.


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

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Hill Talks to Wells About Fans

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      Nothing else matters at this point in time. This video with his own words put the nail in the coffin of his diatribe last night, in fact I think George owes an apology after listening to this.

                      He wasn't a Pacers fan he just liked certain players.

                      Die hards have every right to complain if they want, people on here who live elsewhere & can't attend games but faithfully follow the team can gripe.

                      But I'm sorry if you are on video telling your new team that you didn't grow up a Pacers fan but cheered certain players then I'm sorry you have lost the right to chastize your fellow Hoosiers who did nothing different than you did when you were here as a non-player.

                      I want to both thank you and curse you for finding that video because it shed the light of truth on this subject but I can't say I'm happy to hear it to be honest with you.
                      To me, he's expressing the same sentiments as the bandwagoners around central Indiana. I'm not happy to hear it either.
                      "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Hill Talks to Wells About Fans

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        Nothing else matters at this point in time. This video with his own words put the nail in the coffin of his diatribe last night, in fact I think George owes an apology after listening to this.

                        He wasn't a Pacers fan he just liked certain players.

                        Die hards have every right to complain if they want, people on here who live elsewhere & can't attend games but faithfully follow the team can gripe.

                        But I'm sorry if you are on video telling your new team that you didn't grow up a Pacers fan but cheered certain players then I'm sorry you have lost the right to chastize your fellow Hoosiers who did nothing different than you did when you were here as a non-player.

                        I want to both thank you and curse you for finding that video because it shed the light of truth on this subject but I can't say I'm happy to hear it to be honest with you.
                        It appears like Hill learned empathy the hard way, just like some public figures who suddenly become advocates of things like gay marriage or better access for people disabilities once it is one of their own who becomes directly involved.

                        Does what Hill say helped the situation? Eh, doubtful, even though I wish people would use it as a call to arms. This is the third time that I remember that Hill has called out the fans like this. I am surprised Pacers PR people didn't nip that **** in the bud the first couple of times, either Hill is being intransigent or Pacers PR is sleeping on the job.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          I must be in the minority. I was thinking the same thing as I was watching the game last night. I was disgusted by how much cheering I heard for a team that is WAY on the other side of the country and barely going to make the playoffs. You're going to tell me, that our fanbase have more love for some visitors than our own WINNING local product?

                          Players are humans too! Excuse George Hill for thinking that cheers, praise, and support is a stronger motivator than having knives in your back while shutting up about it.

                          Sent from my XT901 using Tapatalk 2
                          Last edited by ksuttonjr76; 03-16-2013, 01:39 PM.


                          Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Hill Talks to Wells About Fans

                            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                            Isn't Indiana supposed to be different than every other state? "In 49 states it's just basketball, but THIS IS INDIANA". Isn't this the slogan?

                            Isn't Indiana supposed to get behind a hard-working, blue-collar team and not give a damn about superstar?

                            Am I saying something incorrect here?

                            Indiana is known as the Mecca of basketball in my home country. Is it real or not?
                            It's not what you think it is. Pro basketball has never had great support in Indiana. Recall the telethon?

                            I think that mentality really came from high school class basketball many years ago...that blows away anything I have ever seen as a fan. Considering you are from Greece, you may not have known the craze. Even young people under the age of 40 probably don't remember it.

                            To a lesser extent it comes from the Indiana Hoosiers and Bobby Knight. But really, class basketball and that basketball rim attached to the barn is why Indiana has it's rep. It's about filling that high school gym (capacity 1500) on Friday night and watching people you know play the town down the road.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Hill Talks to Wells About Fans

                              Originally posted by rock747 View Post


                              3:57 mark. George Hill would have been one of those same "bandwagon" fans when he lived in Indy? ouch.
                              I wish I could give you more than 1 thanks for this. What a douchebag.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Hill Talks to Wells About Fans

                                Needed to be said.
                                Protect the Promise!!!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X