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

The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United

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

  • Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United

    I'm back with a final list. Here's the voting behaviour of our 5 contestants:

    Anthem Tyrion(1)/Mourning(1)/Since86(via Tyrion)(3)/Gyron(via Tyrion)(4)/Mourning(2)/Ken(1)
    Bellisimo pollardfreek(3)/Anthem(5)/Since86(5)/Gyron(via Tyrion)(3)/None/?
    Fool Anthem(1)/Anthem(4)/Since86(via Tyrion)(4)/None/Mourning(3)/?
    Hoop pollardfreek(6)/None/None/Gyron(6)/None/?
    SycamoreKen pollardfreek(10)/Karmakillaz(1)/Anthem(2)/Gyron(7)/Anthem(2)/Anthem(1)

    It appears they didn't vote for each other except for Anthem (and quite a few times). I also remember that the last was accusing Pig Nash in the 4th round, then changed his vote to Gyron. I say he's human.

    My four wolves:

    Bellisimo pollardfreek(3)/Anthem(5)/Since86(5)/Gyron(via Tyrion)(3)/None/?
    Fool Anthem(1)/Anthem(4)/Since86(via Tyrion)(4)/None/Mourning(3)/?
    Hoop pollardfreek(6)/None/None/Gyron(6)/None/?
    SycamoreKen pollardfreek(10)/Karmakillaz(1)/Anthem(2)/Gyron(7)/Anthem(2)/Anthem(1)

    If I'm right, kudos to Fool, bellisimo, Hoop and SycamoreKen. Without Pig Nash's voting behaviour, I never would've guessed.
    Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
    Bum in Berlin on Myspace

    Comment


    • Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United

      Even though it appears that Fool is a wolf, I'm changing my vote to Hoop to back up Shade's vote.

      I just notice that I missed in my last post that Anthem voted for Ken in this round. Still, that's just one vote. Anthem got way to many votes from the others to be a wolf. Plus he was accused by Pig Nash in the second round.
      Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
      Bum in Berlin on Myspace

      Comment


      • Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United

        Didn't think I could make 4 posts in a row?

        I sure showed you!

        As to why I back up Shade's and not Anthem's vote: at this point I just have more trust in Shade (even though I think Anthem's human as well).
        Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
        Bum in Berlin on Myspace

        Comment


        • Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United

          I'm so confused lol.

          Current Voting Tally:
          Anthem: 1 vote (Ken)
          Hoop: 2 votes (Rasko and Shade)


          Comment


          • Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United

            Err... well I was going to vote Anthem, but I'm kind of confused now... Rasko seems pretty sure of him.

            However, when Tyrion last posted, he did say that maybe he shouldn't have trusted whoever he trusted. So, I'm kinda wondering who he trusted. I know anythem wa one
            You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

            Comment


            • Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United

              Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
              Err... well I was going to vote Anthem, but I'm kind of confused now... Rasko seems pretty sure of him.

              However, when Tyrion last posted, he did say that maybe he shouldn't have trusted whoever he trusted. So, I'm kinda wondering who he trusted. I know anythem wa one
              He trusted Fool, Anthem and me.

              Neither of us knew anything about his vote for Since86.

              When he chose Gyron however, I was advising him to pick indy0731 or Gyron. I think Anthem also mentioned Gyron, and that is why Ty eventually chose him. (I don't believe Fool advised anything.)

              Why any human should follow my latest theory, because obviously, I was wrong about Gyron and indy0731:

              My former theory was based on one major assumption: that a wolf would never give his vote away to a human. This reduced the number of possible wolves to 7. This time my theory is based on a fact (Pig Nash was a wolf) and the assumption that a wolf might vote for another wolf, but only in the case that his vote doesn't really matter.

              The fact that I can now use a fact makes it a lot better of course. And I also think the above assumption is rather likely.

              What do you all think?
              Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
              Bum in Berlin on Myspace

              Comment


              • Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United

                OK.... but why Hoop? He doesn't strike me as wolf, I don't think I want to vote for him.
                You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                Comment


                • Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United

                  He doesn't strike me as a human too.

                  I don't know. I'll vote for someone on my current list anyway. Might as well make my vote stronger by seconding someone else that I trust.


                  If I'm wrong again, I give up.
                  Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
                  Bum in Berlin on Myspace

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United

                    Originally posted by Raskolnikov View Post
                    If I'm right, kudos to Fool, bellisimo, Hoop and SycamoreKen. Without Pig Nash's voting behaviour, I never would've guessed.
                    Holy cow, that was impressive. I've been suspecting Fool for a little while now, along with SycamoreKen. bellisimo matches my original theory... jumped on the voting early to hang pollardfreak.

                    Where are the votes at? Anyboy got a tally? If it's close, I might change to go along with Shade and Rasko. We can always get SycoKen next time.

                    We might pull this out.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United

                      Originally posted by Raskolnikov View Post
                      He trusted Fool, Anthem and me.

                      Neither of us knew anything about his vote for Since86.

                      When he chose Gyron however, I was advising him to pick indy0731 or Gyron. I think Anthem also mentioned Gyron, and that is why Ty eventually chose him. (I don't believe Fool advised anything.)
                      Just look at your PM's or any of the haf a dozen posts I've restated that PM in. I advised him not to share anything in private that he wouldn't share in public because none of us could be sure who was who then no matter what we thought about anyone (that's still sound advice imo). Then when I was asked, I said I was suspicious of you (Rasko), Pig Nash, and Mourning. I also gave reasons for why I was suspicious of each.

                      I was and still am suspicious of Rasko because he keeps adopting these "theories" that point the finger at different people each time, then when they prove incorrect, he doesn't think to be critical of his overall process, (creating an all-encompassing theorie trying to explain exactly who every player is) he simply changes his initial premise so that his new theory points at different people.

                      I was suspicious of Mourning because it looked to me like he started the game out trying not to get voted for and then when his name came up on a couple of wolf lists he changed his style and got more confrontational. That's still true but he was also happy to vote for Indy0731 as mayor who I've said more than once (and well before he became our only successfull wolf hunter) struck me as being human.

                      I was also suspicious of Pig Nash because of his abrupt turn around on Since86. Since86 proposed an idea of who he thought were wolves, Nash challenged it, Since86 fired back that maybe Nash was a wolf for challenging it, and Nash immediately threw his support behind Since86.

                      It looks like one of those 3 suspicions was correct and nothing has really happened to make me more suspicious of someon else. Since Mourning has done something recently that appears less wolf-ish (voting to put a human in as mayor) I'll vote for Rasko.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United

                        I'm supporting Rasky on this one. First theory that sounds reasonably plausible. I don't think the Wolves use an all-encompassing theory, but this sounds like the best "hitlist" I have seen for a long while.

                        I'm voting Hoop aswell.

                        Regards,

                        Mourning
                        2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                        2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                        2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United

                          alright I managed to get online to go over what has happened and add my 2 cents...

                          *whooo!* we got a wolfie! about damn time! Figures only a wolf would go after a human like myself...
                          I'm sorry to see TWscholl gone...did he mention any other gut feelings as to who might've been a wolf?

                          I'm honestly tired of Rasko's blabbering...he's placed blame on just about everyone in this game....I say it's time we chop his fingers off or something...he's just creating one hit-list after another...and now, he's accusing me of being a wolf? just cause I wasn't around to defend myself! for shame Rasko...for shame!

                          I've been suspicious of Hoop since the begining as he's hardly around...he might be the silent wolf....hence I vote to hang Hoop. I pray that we'll see him shed some fur once he is lynched!

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United

                            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                            bellisimo matches my original theory... jumped on the voting early to hang pollardfreak.
                            it's the first time i'm playing this game...hence I got a bit too trigger happy in hopes of lynching a wolf in the first round.
                            if that makes me a wolf...that would also mean that mourning is also a wolf....

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United

                              Originally posted by Raskolnikov View Post
                              Obviously, I'm human, and so is Shade. If Shade isn't, he's just a brilliant, brilliant wolf. Thus we have
                              what makes it so obvious that you're a human?
                              all you do is try to create hitlists to get the people going in a voting frenzy for someone in your list...
                              and I have to applaud you for pulling it off so well.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United

                                Originally posted by Fool View Post
                                Just look at your PM's or any of the haf a dozen posts I've restated that PM in. I advised him not to share anything in private that he wouldn't share in public because none of us could be sure who was who then no matter what we thought about anyone (that's still sound advice imo). Then when I was asked, I said I was suspicious of you (Rasko), Pig Nash, and Mourning. I also gave reasons for why I was suspicious of each.

                                I was and still am suspicious of Rasko because he keeps adopting these "theories" that point the finger at different people each time, then when they prove incorrect, he doesn't think to be critical of his overall process, (creating an all-encompassing theorie trying to explain exactly who every player is) he simply changes his initial premise so that his new theory points at different people.

                                I was suspicious of Mourning because it looked to me like he started the game out trying not to get voted for and then when his name came up on a couple of wolf lists he changed his style and got more confrontational. That's still true but he was also happy to vote for Indy0731 as mayor who I've said more than once (and well before he became our only successfull wolf hunter) struck me as being human.

                                I was also suspicious of Pig Nash because of his abrupt turn around on Since86. Since86 proposed an idea of who he thought were wolves, Nash challenged it, Since86 fired back that maybe Nash was a wolf for challenging it, and Nash immediately threw his support behind Since86.

                                It looks like one of those 3 suspicions was correct and nothing has really happened to make me more suspicious of someon else. Since Mourning has done something recently that appears less wolf-ish (voting to put a human in as mayor) I'll vote for Rasko.
                                Everything you say is correct.

                                Your vote however is not correct (in the way that you're voting for a human).

                                If I had to say whether you are human or not without considering the voting behaviour, I'd say you're human. But IMO it's very dangerous to judge on the basis of feeling. I'd only do that afterwards in order to check on my results.

                                Looking at PN's and the remaining wolf candidates' voting behaviour, you appear to be a wolf.

                                Looking at your posting style and the facts you mention above, I never would've thought, so I'd be inclined to first hang Hoop and Ken, then reconsider my theory again.

                                You're critical of everyone and everything, especially of the more vocal ones and inhabitants of the Low Countries, but you've never been criticized once yourself. Furthermore, now that I changed my vote, you still haven't received a single vote yet. And just because I reconsidered my vote, tried to back it up with a theory, and thus became more vocal after I'd been quiet for a while, you voted for me.

                                The fact that you thought both Mourning and I could be wolves, even after calling out each other multiple times for being a wolf, never sat right with me. I guess it is a wolf strategy to try and make everyone as indecisive as bellisimo by questioning every principle someone else assumes (in this case, that two wolves would never continuously accuse each other of being a wolf).

                                It's also a wolf strategy to be indecisive, like bellisimo. Or to be extremely quiet, like Hoop. Or to be SycamoreKen, like SycamoreKen. Or to be quiet and chime in an accusation every once in a while, like Pig Nash.

                                It's very well possible that you're just human. If you're not, you're a brilliant wolf.


                                I also voted indy0731 by the way. And my vote still mattered at that point.
                                Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
                                Bum in Berlin on Myspace

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X