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

Holding Court: George Hill talks about team struggles

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

  • #91
    Re: Holding Court: George Hill talks about team struggles

    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
    I have a level of empathy for anyone performing in public until they demand my money to watch them perform. At that point there is a minimum level of expectation that needs to be met like any other paid service.
    I have zero issue with anything here.

    My question (not to you specifically but rather just in general) is this: Why does this expectation of a minimum level of service give a person the right to be downright rude, vile and nasty to those performers?

    Not satisfied with a meal? Don't return to the restaurant.

    Not happy with your dry cleaning services? Go to a new one.

    Don't care for Bud Light? There are hundreds of alternatives.

    Unhappy with the performance of a sports team, band or a theatrical production? Yell, scream, spend hours of time launching personal and professional attacks on the people who put their hearts into the performance you saw.

    Something just doesn't add up here.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Holding Court: George Hill talks about team struggles

      If I'm not satisfied with a meal, I demand a better-prepared one, or I file a complaint with the manager if the service was terrible.

      Booing is not a "personal attack," and chances are if you're getting booed by your own fans, you did not in fact put your "heart and soul" into your performance.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Holding Court: George Hill talks about team struggles

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        If I'm not satisfied with a meal, I demand a better-prepared one, or I file a complaint with the manager if the service was terrible.

        Booing is not a "personal attack," and chances are if you're getting booed by your own fans, you did not in fact put your "heart and soul" into your performance.
        Booing may not be a personal attack, but hundreds upon hundred of posts on Twitter, Facebook and message boards about how worthless player A is, or how player B is such a _____, or how player C needs to get over it and 'man up' and stop being such a *****, or whatever other example you want to look at...

        Those certainly are personal attacks.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Holding Court: George Hill talks about team struggles

          Originally posted by TMJ31 View Post
          Booing may not be a personal attack, but hundreds upon hundred of posts on Twitter, Facebook and message boards about how worthless player A is, or how player B is such a _____, or how player C needs to get over it and 'man up' and stop being such a *****, or whatever other example you want to look at...

          Those certainly are personal attacks.
          Those kinds of "fans" aren't worthy of any kind of attention.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Holding Court: George Hill talks about team struggles

            Originally posted by Shade View Post
            Those kinds of "fans" aren't worthy of any kind of attention.
            Well, I tend to agree. But if we ignored everyone on PD who is posting stuff like this, threads would have a handful of folks in them.

            Sad but true.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Holding Court: George Hill talks about team struggles

              Originally posted by TMJ31 View Post
              Well, I tend to agree. But if we ignored everyone on PD who is posting stuff like this, threads would have a handful of folks in them.

              Sad but true.
              The majority of posters here do not make those kinds of comments. Honestly, it doesn't make it right, but I'm sure most professional athletes at a young age have learned to tune that out. I'm sure they see comments like those from time to time, but it is what it is. There's idiots in this world.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Holding Court: George Hill talks about team struggles

                Whatever. I booed because they didn't play hard. There was no effort, no heart. I can live with missed shots and turnovers, but lack of effort is unacceptable.

                Ultimately it's entertainment. I have a right to boo if I paid to see my team try hard. I'm not asking for much.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Holding Court: George Hill talks about team struggles

                  Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                  I just hope that everything that Hill said is true.
                  That would be nice. I have a hard time believing it. Why would they be so much more tired than many other teams? Nobody else fell off a cliff.

                  From the "bunch of selfish dudes" comment to the Roy benching...seems a little more than what Hill is saying. I also think the trades caused issues, not just Granger but bringing in Bynum.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Holding Court: George Hill talks about team struggles

                    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                    Whatever. I booed because they didn't play hard. There was no effort, no heart. I can live with missed shots and turnovers, but lack of effort is unacceptable.

                    Ultimately it's entertainment. I have a right to boo if I paid to see my team try hard. I'm not asking for much.
                    For the record: I am not saying people were necessarily wrong to boo when they did during the Hawks game. I get it. I really do.

                    They weren't playing hard or with heart at all.

                    I suppose the biggest thing I was trying to advocate here is that the constant dogging and bashing / badmouthing our own team and most importantly individual players just... I don't know. What are we trying to accomplish by posting that stuff?

                    It's possible to vent without it devolving into "Player A is such a lazy PoS bum. God I can't wait until we trade him for a pencil."

                    These people play for the team you root for. You have to take the bad with the good. The saying applies to fans as well, 'When the going gets tough...'

                    I just wish we didn't turn on the guys so viciously, then forgive them when they play well for a game, then proclaim them trash the next day...

                    It's tiring.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Holding Court: George Hill talks about team struggles

                      Defense is predominantly about effort. The Hawks made shots when they should AND shouldn't have, but there is no way that Sheldon Mack should ever drive the lane on guys. That level of effort deserves boos.

                      The fact that I logged in just to type that speaks bounds.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Holding Court: George Hill talks about team struggles

                        Originally posted by TMJ31 View Post
                        Booing may not be a personal attack, but hundreds upon hundred of posts on Twitter, Facebook and message boards about how worthless player A is, or how player B is such a _____, or how player C needs to get over it and 'man up' and stop being such a *****, or whatever other example you want to look at...

                        Those certainly are personal attacks.
                        How are you making the leap from booing to twitter attacks?
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Holding Court: George Hill talks about team struggles

                          Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                          Whatever. I booed because they didn't play hard. There was no effort, no heart. I can live with missed shots and turnovers, but lack of effort is unacceptable.

                          Ultimately it's entertainment. I have a right to boo if I paid to see my team try hard. I'm not asking for much.
                          This. Those of us that attended during the JOB years rarely boo'd, and those teams were HORRID. But, they did tend to play hard and with effort. The past few years as our attendance has grown--we have rarely boo'd the team as their effort was there. Watch the end of game 6 against the Miami Heat in the 2012 playoffs. The team received a standing ovation even though we lost the game. It was due to the effort that was put forth.

                          Missing shots, dumb turnovers, even losing--a paying fan can live with.

                          Playing like you don't give a damn--unacceptable.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Holding Court: George Hill talks about team struggles

                            Originally posted by rock747 View Post
                            However, the fans expects to see effort. Not 23 points put up by the home team at halftime.
                            You are not going to get a consistantly great effort for all 41 home games. Not saying it is right, but it is the truth.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Holding Court: George Hill talks about team struggles

                              Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                              It's giving a respectful opinion. It's saying "I know why they did it and that's ok but I don't agree with it." He's not trying to pit two sides against one another, he's finding middle ground. Which is the exact opposite of what "talking out of both sides of mouth" means.

                              So "Some Parts" should learn the true usage of that euphemism if they want to be taken seriously.
                              Sounds like you don't love me anymore.
                              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


                              • Re: Holding Court: George Hill talks about team struggles

                                Poor, poor George. Sorry he had his feelings hurt by being booed.

                                Honestly this is just another example of why I simply don't like this team that much anymore. They are constantly whining. All of them. They whine about being tired. They whine to the refs for 48 minutes a night. They whine about fans booing them. They whine about not getting enough shots. It's just out of control.

                                This goes for George Hill, Paul George, Roy Hibbert, Lance Stephenson, David West, and Frank Vogel especially: SHUT THE **** UP, AND PLAY THE GAME! They've completely sucked the fun out of what was the most fun season I've ever had as a Pacers fan.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X