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

Harrison PO'd at Star

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

  • #31
    Re: Harrison PO'd at Star

    Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
    I personally could give the "business end of a rat" on how he deals with the media, especially the poor excuse of journallist we have in this market.
    I don't get it. Why is the overall tone here supporting Harrison instead of the media? Maybe sometimes the media in Indy sucks, but I think that Chappell and Richards (I read them several times a week) are pretty decent guys who try to cover the team as well as they can. I certainly pick up a lot of valuable info from them. Keep in mind that the Colts aren't exactly the most divulging organization out there. It can be pretty hard to get certain info out of them, so sometimes the reporters info is limited. They aren't "poor excuses of journalists", but are 2 guys who wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't ask questions.

    I've heard people complain on here that the Star is the Pacers lap dog. But now people are supporting Harrison because the Star might have asked a few prying questions that hurt his feelings? What gives? Do you want a media that is a lapdog, or one that tries to ask relevant questions (like chap and richards)? I've heard plenty of complaining on here about both, and can't figure it out.

    I'm going to assume that it's either one, or a combination, of 2 things that ticked him off.

    1) He didn't like the whispers about where he was when he missed all that time last year.

    2) He didn't like them reporting about the incident in Philly.

    These were two pretty relevant issues. If the media didn't speculate about where he was last year then they would be p*ss poor at their jobs. And the same can be said about the gun issue last year. Sorry Marv, if your weapon is used in a felony then that is newsworthy information. That's a price you pay for being a professional athlete. Harrison has no trouble pocketing the millions of dollars that he makes by being a great receiver, but seems to want no part of having any of his private life in the spotlight. Unfortunately, that's a price you pay when you are famous. Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too.

    Now if there is something that we don't know about that made Harrison upset at the reporters, then I am willing to change my mind on it. But I think its likely that it's one of these 2 things that made him mad. And I'm siding with Chap here...he's just doing his job.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Harrison PO'd at Star

      I remember that story of the pro bowl incident. Smells like someone wanted to scheme some Benjamin's there.

      Plus, police officers use excessive force all the time and get out of line sometimes just to show their butt to high profile people. I don't know enough to say that Marvin was wrong in this. I'm not high profile, but I've been involved in similar incidents. I was accused of battery for breaking the officers right index finger, and the breaking of the finger was intentional, but he assaulted me on camera with no probable reasoning, he just didn't like my attitude or my knowledge of the law. The charge was immediately dropped. The tape somehow disappeared.

      I was attacked in a airport luggage area in South Carolina intervening with a assault on a woman. I was a minor at the time, little did he know, and was assaulted by a forty year old man. I never laid a finger on him until he jumped me, I just told him to leave her alone. It turns out that he was the younger brother of the man in charge of airport security. I you see were this is going the tape magically disappeared.

      Maybe, Marvin could be a bad guy. I just don't care until there is a real, complete story. If you want to dig up trash on any single high profile person in the world, go to cracked.com and indulge yourself. At that site you can pull up tons of rumors and BS stories that never became much of anything because they were ruled out as a scheme or a rumor. There are real stories that were covered in depth by the media on that site as well, mostly BS though. On that site our golden boy Peyton apparently was accused of sexual misconduct. I agree get off the soap box and give the guy a freakin' break.
      Last edited by Noodle; 08-27-2008, 02:31 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Harrison PO'd at Star

        I guess I'm a little surprised at how many people are willing to turn a blind eye to a lot of things from Harrison. Anyone know why? Is it his production? Or maybe there have been too many game-day reports on how Marvin hides from the spotlight and eats Tasty Cakes?

        For a guy who doesn't want to be bothered or make waves, Marvin sure has a funny way of showing it.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Harrison PO'd at Star

          Blind eye?

          What is there to turn a blind eye too? So what he's a P*ick to the media? Should he be fined for giving incomplete answers? Should he never set foot in the HOF? Should he be suspended?

          Why in the world you really care how an athlete answers questions to the media is beyond me. I believe Peter King to be one of the best, if not the best writers, in football and he'll even tell you that while he has good relationships with a lot of players that he is not their "friend," which has caused him to burn a few bridges with some players.

          Marvin doesn't even open up to his teammates, and you honestly expect him to open up to a beat writer?

          We don't need to know everything, he does have the right to privacy. How do you not make waves? "No comment" might be the best answer, but I'm still sure there would be some complaining about that.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Harrison PO'd at Star

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            What is there to turn a blind eye too?
            I'm talking about points Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in MarionDeputy's post.

            I could care less if he's a big talker with the media or not. But if he wanted to be left alone, the best strategy would be to give reporters a canned answer. "Yes, the knee is doing better. Thank you." If you came off the way Marvin did recently, that's going to draw attention. I'm sure he knew that. That's why he did it.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Harrison PO'd at Star

              Class and/or respect- Marvin showed neither in his answer to the Star. That's the problem. It's not that he didn't want to talk or that he refused, it is that he answered as a total prick. Considering he's coming off a season lost to injury that was handled rather strangely (at least as far as the public is concerned) and has an 'issue' with a handgun and shooting that has been more swept under the rug than explained and excused, I don't think it's asking too much for Harrison to 'man up' and face the media... Nor do I think the media is out of line asking about those things. That is their job. They would be out of line if they didn't ask those questions.

              If Marvin doesn't want to answer... then don't. Just STFU, give a canned ambiguous (but respectful answer), or say "no comment". Better yet, especially in regards to the Philly incident hand out/fax a prepared statement and end it with a tag that this is all that will said by Marvin on the subject. Then pull out the "no comments" if reporters ask further about it. Eventually they'll get the idea if they need more information on it, they'll have to ask someone besides Marvin. (Of course by asking Marvin directly they are offering him the chance to get out in front of it and relate his side and/or exactly how he wants the incident to be framed).

              Marvin has no high ground to stand on in this debate and Adam is exactly right. The Star reporter(s) have done nothing wrong and asking tough questions is their job. It's not even like these were tough questions.

              I stand by my statements that Marvin seems to be getting stranger as time goes on. That's certainly his right but that doesn't allow him to not use common sense and face reality.

              He doesn't owe the public and press anything... EXCEPT... a little respect. If he wants it himself, he needs far less 'interviews' like this one.
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Harrison PO'd at Star

                Marvin's a dick.

                But I don't care. His job is to play football, not be a nice guy.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Harrison PO'd at Star

                  Whatever happened to, "Both teams played hard" as the universal answer to every stupid reporter's questions?
                  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


                  • #39
                    Re: Harrison PO'd at Star

                    Originally posted by Kraft View Post
                    I'm talking about points Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in MarionDeputy's post.
                    Well point number three is invalid because this same hawaiian family that tried getting Harrison for assault had tried the same scam (just with a different family member) before to no avail.

                    Before you ask, no I don't have a link as I don't really feel like searching for it. You can either take my word for it or search for a link yourself.


                    As for the topic...its pretty rediculous. So he is standoffish and coming off like a jerk in the newspaper, big deal. You know he's human. His career will not be tarnished because of this. The media as a whole has been pretty bad to him over the past year. Yeah, he shouldn't pigeonhole them all together but you certainly can't blame him.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Harrison PO'd at Star

                      The fatt dudes sidekick on 950AM is the most over done person in INDYS media. He rambles on about Marvin and Peytons conditions like he was a right to know.

                      The media here is a joke.
                      I really have a hard time listening/reading about the colts.
                      Last edited by Gamble1; 08-31-2008, 11:39 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Harrison PO'd at Star

                        Originally posted by gilpdawg View Post
                        Marvin's a dick.

                        But I don't care. His job is to play football, not be a nice guy.
                        Sounds like your speaking from experience.

                        I really don't believe athletes are all that bad its just there jobs are more than just the sport.

                        If I had to deal with media/fans every week I would probably become bittered at their lack of understanding and constant badgering. Can any of you relate to Marvin anyhow? I can't and I don't really want to.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X