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

Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

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

  • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

    Originally posted by Stryder
    You do realize that your poll is flawed, therefore, making it invalid, don't you?

    In addition, internet polls are not scientific.
    Look, I am not taking a scientific poll here.

    Right now, it is 17-6 in favor of Ron and the Pacers and no my poll is not flawed and it is not invalid. This forum favors Ron 17-6 at the current point and the ones who hate him posted here while the ones who support him simply have not because some of them may feel like they will get chastised by some of you....

    Pacer fans I have met throughout support Ron unanimously...even ones I know in Indy who regularly goes to games...all I have to say is look at all the Ron Artest jerseys in the crowd and throughout the country I find the Ron Artest jersey to be the most popular even ahead of J.O.

    Look for me at the Pacer-Suns game Sunday in Phoenix, I will be right behind the Pacer bench...1st row!

    Comment


    • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

      BTW, 18-6 in favor of Ronnie!!!!

      Comment


      • Just to Note...the Pacers Digest so far Supports Ron & the Pacers 18-6

        I just wanted to note this people...before people who visit here and don't post start to think Pacer fans on here don't like Ron...the poll has favored Ron clearly 18-6...and Pacer fans outside of here are much more supportive for Ron as well.

        Comment


        • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

          Point of order

          I have not voted. Your options do not reflect my views and so I do not vote. I'm willing to bet there are many others feeling the same way.
          2nd point...I too feel that Stern was way overboard but rather than sticking it to Ron, he was looking to punish the Pacers for not controlling Ron.
          Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

          Comment


          • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

            This poll represents those who decided to vote and I don't feel most people just decided "not to vote"....this poll reflects the PacersDigest and just leave it to that.

            Comment


            • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

              it keeps going up! 19-6 in favor of Ronnie and the Pacers!!!!

              Comment


              • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

                I don't know every fan but the ones I have talked to, even the non-Pacer fans are all much more positive about him than some of you and all acknowledge a season long suspension was outrageous....but again, there is only a few of you on here than do not like Ron, the majority on here support Ron and the PAcers as shown by this poll.

                And also, reason why I post so much is i'm @ work in the day and I can do what I want...now I have a headace and feeling sick. I'm going to go take a nap.

                Comment


                • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

                  Hey Sassan, when the Pacers trade players, as they have in the past and will surely in the future (not necessarily Artest), as a real Pacer fan am I supposed to support the new players or the old ones? I'm a little confused, and I want to make sure that I am following real fan etiquette. Whenever we make our next trade, since I am supporting our current players 100%, should I be pissed that management traded the player that I support and love? Wait, I have to support management, so I can't support the old players right? Wait, but then they won't be Pacers anymore, so now I should support the new Pacers, right? I guess I shouldn't worry about it and should just focus on hating Stern.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

                    Originally posted by recap
                    Hey Sassan, when the Pacers trade players, as they have in the past and will surely in the future (not necessarily Artest), as a real Pacer fan am I supposed to support the new players or the old ones? I'm a little confused, and I want to make sure that I am following real fan etiquette. Whenever we make our next trade, since I am supporting our current players 100%, should I be pissed that management traded the player that I support and love? Wait, I have to support management, so I can't support the old players right? Wait, but then they won't be Pacers anymore, so now I should support the new Pacers, right? I guess I shouldn't worry about it and should just focus on hating Stern.
                    Come on Recap, what kind of question is that?

                    I will answer it though.

                    #1, the suspension on Ron Artest was not only a vendeta Stern had against Ron, but it is against the Indiana Pacers franchise; that has been my argument on here.

                    If we could trade Ron Artest to make our team better for let's say a Shaquille O'Neal or a Kevin Garnett, I would pull the trigger (for Kevin Garnett for sure)....but I would not trade him for someone who could not replace Ronnie and would not make this team as good as if Ron was still on the team.

                    If we are going to trade players, that is fine...it is part of the game....but respect former Pacer players. I respect Jalen for what he brought to the Pacers...I respect the Davis bros....even Travis Best....but we move on....come on, stop with the question and understand the point I am trying to get across.

                    The suspension against Ron can not be justified by any means (the length of it) and of course I hate Stern....I do believe in the conspiracy theory and how the NBA does not want small market teams to win championships and this punishing Ron for the whole season was a blow at Ron and the Pacers and surely one must recognize that.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

                      Look I can sum up this whole thread in three sentences.

                      You are not a real fan, all of you.

                      Ron will win us many titles.

                      Stern is the anti-christ.
                      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

                        Originally posted by SoupIsGood
                        Look I can sum up this whole thread in three sentences.

                        You are not a real fan, all of you.

                        Ron will win us many titles.

                        Stern is the anti-christ.
                        There are only two posters on here I do not consider true Pacer fans...the other ones have said nothing to make me think otherwise.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

                          Wait...what am I doing here? :shakehead

                          Comment


                          • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

                            If anything this thread is making me hate Stern less.

                            After the brawl and sentencing I had some very strong feelings against Stern. I always thought Ron got what he deserved but felt Jermaine got too much. I also had suspicions on the way Stern ran this league.

                            Now after reading this thread I see that I sounded like loon and the type of people my thinking would be associated with. Have too say this thread has opened my eyes and has given me a better opinion of the League Office
                            House Name: Pacers

                            House Sigil:



                            House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

                            Comment


                            • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

                              Originally posted by Diamond Dave
                              If anything this thread is making me hate Stern less.

                              After the brawl and sentencing I had some very strong feelings against Stern. I always thought Ron got what he deserved but felt Jermaine got too much. I also had suspicions on the way Stern ran this league.

                              Now after reading this thread I see that I sounded like loon and the type of people my thinking would be associated with. Have too say this thread has opened my eyes and has given me a better opinion of the League Office
                              Look, my posts are extremist on here....but that is what I am trying to do! I am trying to rile people up and have them voice their real opinions and make them come out of the closet and I have successfully done that. You know where certain Pacer "fans" stand about their team and you know the loyalty I bring and where I stand...

                              I am not here to make people here happy, I am here to make a point and controversy is what brings that.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

                                Problem is, just because you elect to have 2 extreme options in the poll that does not mean they reflect what most people think.

                                Yes, you can rile ppl up but that has nothing to do with them being able to express their true opinion or not.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X