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

Roy's comment's

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

  • #76
    Re: Roy's comment's

    Originally posted by MUpaceSIC View Post
    The problem is that not everyone is religious, and therefore doesn't share your belief that it is a sin. I choose to base my beliefs on rational thought and proven facts because to me that makes sense. I have nothing against Christianity; however, my issue is when people use their religious beliefs to try to oppress and belittle another group of people. I thought religion was about loving and accepting thy neighbor, not the hate, hate, hate attitude that I hear so often. And you really can't say that those who accept homosexuality and are Christian are "making their own rules" without acknowledging that there are so many things in the Bible that are universally ignored because of how absolutely ridiculous those "rules" are. Everyone picks and chooses things to believe and not believe out of the Bible, and that is a fact.
    Isn't the cherry picking amusing? They latch onto the homosexuality-is-an-abomination nonsense, while ignoring stuff like: Deuteronomy 21:18-21
    No Jesus!

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Roy's comment's

      Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
      So, essentially, because you don't believe in it, it should be okay to insult it? You are aware that this is pretty much the exact definition of bigotry, correct?

      Bigotry | Dictionary.com



      So, basically, you're a bigot rallying against bigotry.

      Tell me, have you ever taken an IQ test? If so, would you mind sharing the results with the board? I've had a bad day and could use a hearty laugh.


      On a side note, I'm still waiting for the first argument for atheism that's both based on positive evidence and is subject to testing via the various scientific methods.


      I don't believe in God because God does not exist. There is exactly ZERO evidence of a supreme deity. The onus is on those believing in God to prove it exists. Furthermore, belief in God has always been a matter of blind faith not subject to the rigors of the scientific method. I never said that people could not believe in God or practice a religion but it is a conscious CHOICE they make, unlike homosexuality, making the two quite different. Furthermore, and the fact that you neglect to mention this is appalling, Christians are not a minority sect subject to hate crimes and rampant discrimination. Therefore, insulting a group that to this day is denied equal rights and suffers from violence and discrimination is far more egregious than insulting the dominant socioeconomic group that holds all the levers of power in this country.

      Your insult of my intellect is par for the course for a typical self righteous Christian when their worldview is called into question.
      Last edited by hoosierguy; 06-02-2013, 10:47 AM.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Roy's comment's

        Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
        So, essentially, because you don't believe in it, it should be okay to insult it? You are aware that this is pretty much the exact definition of bigotry, correct?

        Bigotry | Dictionary.com



        So, basically, you're a bigot rallying against bigotry.

        Tell me, have you ever taken an IQ test? If so, would you mind sharing the results with the board? I've had a bad day and could use a hearty laugh.


        On a side note, I'm still waiting for the first argument for atheism that's both based on positive evidence and is subject to testing via the various scientific methods.
        Everyone is a bigot in some form or another. The difference is that one side is trying to oppress a group of people, and the other side is simply trying to fight for the freedoms that others take for granted. There is a BIG difference.

        A great saying to live by: Being wrong is a chance to learn. If you never allow yourself to skew from your original viewpoint then not only will you be wrong, but you will also never learn.

        Just being open to others views is really all anyone wants. There is common ground... the problem is that some people don't want to give up any of that ground.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Roy's comment's

          Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
          So, if you go to work and say your a homo and you get fired, then you are discriminated and a law suit could happen, so, you probably won't be fired. But you'll lose your job if you say your not a homo cause why?

          Double standard there.
          Homosexuality is not a protected class in many states meaning you absolutely CAN be fired for being gay with no ability to seek damages whatsoever.

          Of course, discrimination on the basis of one's religion is protected so no Christian ever needs to worry about getting fired for being openly Christian.
          Last edited by hoosierguy; 06-02-2013, 10:44 AM.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Roy's comment's

            Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
            God does not exist. That you believe in a silly fairy tale and call yourself a "Christian" does not make you the arbiter of what is moral behavior. Get off your high horse.
            I guess selective intolerance is just fine with you then, tough guy? Please do the rest of the alumni a favor and take the IU logo out of your avatar.
            "I mean, you'd walk into our dressing room and run into Mel Daniels holding a .45 -- it makes you wonder."

            Bob Netolicky

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Roy's comment's

              Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
              So, essentially, because you don't believe in it, it should be okay to insult it? You are aware that this is pretty much the exact definition of bigotry, correct?

              .
              You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

              Comment


              • #82
                I must be in the minority. Frankly, I could care less about his comments. Also, the "no homo" might have a slightly different meaning in the African-American community than this overly sensitive nonsense that I'm reading about it being a "joke". Anytime I heard it, I have ALWAYS interpreted it to mean, "I'm not a punk." or "I'm a man, and I'm not just going to let you dominate me.".

                The perception (whether accurate or not) of male, gay relationships for Black men is that one of the men is believed to have more of the "feminine" personality or traits than the other. When I hear that comment, it usually means "I'm not your girlfriend.". Lastly and from my experience, this comment usually comes out when someone is CLEARLY trying to impose their will over someone else.

                IMHO, Hibbert probably said it more out frustration, and was just sick and tired of the media CONSTANTLY writing Indiana off anytime Miami wins a game. Hibbert is probably sick and tired of everyone (minus Barkley) treating Miami like they're this unstoppable team, and we should be "honored" to be playing them in the ECF. Truth be told, Hibbert's lashing out against the media was a GOOD thing. It means he's pissed, and wants the NBA world to know that Indiana is title contention team and NOT Miami's floormat.
                Last edited by ksuttonjr76; 06-02-2013, 10:47 AM.


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

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Roy's comment's

                  Originally posted by RWB View Post
                  Actually it is more like HR calling me in behind closed doors and asking "what is your Fing problem and are you Fing nuts". Of course this is followed by "would you like to put in your resignation".
                  So It's ok for one to go around saying I'm a homo, but not ok to go around and saying I'm no homo. Seriously, the problem at hand is not the one saying I'm no homo, but the people who thinks in some way that all homosexuals will be upset cause a person saying he's not a homosexual. That's pretty ****edup.
                  Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Roy's comment's

                    Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                    I must be in the minority. Frankly, I could care less about his comments. Also, the "no homo" might have a slightly different meaning in the African-American community than this overly sensitive nonsense that I'm reading about it being a "joke". Anytime I heard it, I have ALWAYS interpreted it to mean, "I'm not a punk." or "I'm a man, and I'm not just going to let you dominate me.".

                    The perception (whether accurate or not) of male, gay relationships for Black men is that one of the men is believed to have more of the "feminine" personality or traits than the other. When I heard that comment, it usually means "I'm not girlfriend.". Lastly and from my experience, this comment usually comes out when someone is CLEARLY trying to impose their will over someone else.

                    .
                    Okay..you really don't understand how that can be offensive? Seriously...read what you wrote from the perspective of a homosexual male...and a woman. (Because honestly, your interpretation is not only offensive to homosexuals but also to women.)

                    Honestly, your interpretation is much more offensive than the one I had.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Roy's comment's

                      Originally posted by Drewtone View Post
                      I guess selective intolerance is just fine with you then, tough guy? Please do the rest of the alumni a favor and take the IU logo out of your avatar.
                      I will do no such thing.

                      The comment of mine you quoted demonstrated no lack of tolerance just dismissal of a view based on a complete lack of supporting evidence.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Roy's comment's

                        And here I thought this thread was about his comments as to why he wasn't voted defensive player of the year

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Roy's comment's

                          Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
                          So It's ok for one to go around saying I'm a homo, but not ok to go around and saying I'm no homo. Seriously, the problem at hand is not the one saying I'm no homo, but the people who thinks in some way that all homosexuals will be upset cause a person saying he's not a homosexual. That's pretty ****edup.
                          Not sure how many gays go around saying they're 'homo' rather than gay as I have no proof either way. What I am saying is sometimes you need to be logical in your thinking when you're up on that podium and in the limelight. I was kind of making a joke about work but now that you think I was serious then yes I would be in deep **** for making comments like Roy and I would expect consequences for being such a dumbass.
                          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


                          • #88
                            Re: Roy's comment's

                            I like Roy, but he and other Pacers have to realize you are selling yourself to the public at all times, and that means you have to be careful, because fairly or not, one incident like this can permanently set a person's opinion of you. It's like tweeting the pic of a lady defecating in the street. You have to think.

                            MJ understood this, so did Peyton.

                            It's unfortunate because I can already see how this plays out. Several article from Slate and such with that patented sanctimonious air about them from people who don't watch basketball about why Hibbert's"No Homo" comment was bad, followed by several Fox News style retorts from people who also dont watch basketball about how Hibbert can mumble that he isn't gay and that's worse than blatantly cursing out reporters. Every article will have flame wars in the comments and 2 dozen "I love Roy Hibbert, no homo" comments. Then someone, maybe that guy who said voting for Cabrera for baseball MVP is like voting for Romney, will talk about how this shows Miami is more enlightened than Indy even though Roy isn't from Indiana.

                            Then We get to be preached on the subject by Stephen A Smith and Skip Bayless on Monday while Mike and Mike discuss it in ultra serious tones and Hibbert is basically forced by media pressure to clarify his stance on gay marriage. It's all ridiculous but you don't have this problem if you showed a little more maturity and didn't use bad language and dumb jokes.

                            But anyway, go kick tail in game 7 regardless.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Roy's comment's

                              I really don't see what the big deal is about. He called a group of heterosexual men, homo's. If they question their sexuality and are offended, so be it. If the homosexual community doesn't like the term homo being a negative connotation in the heterosexual community, then they really do have thin skin. Get over it people and stop being so sensitive. I thought homosexuals hated the term ****** more than anything else and he didn't go there. I'm sure the **** in the NBA front office will give him a hefty fine though.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Roy's comment's

                                Originally posted by Shade View Post
                                I've never heard "no homo" used in any context other than as a joke. Would it have been more acceptable if he had succeeded it with "not that there's anything wrong with that"?
                                Exactly. I think calling this a 'slur' or 'bigoted' or 'homophobic' is absurd.

                                He made a sophomoric joke using a juvenile term. Nothing more, nothing less.

                                I get really frustrated with the people who are making more of it than that because it's so ridiculous.

                                On social matters, as some of you here are well aware, I tend to be considerably more liberal than conservative (in particular when it comes to gay rights), but this kind of reaction some people are having to Roy's comment are driving me up the wall with how absurdly sensitive and contrived they are. So obsessed with 'how it sounds' and putting that ahead of WHAT THEY ACTUALLY THINK HE MEANT. That's so BACKWARDS. I hate that. The purpose of human language is to communicate ideas, but now we have a chunk of society that is more interested in the misinterpretation of the speaker's choice of language than they are in what they believe the idea actually was. It's sick.

                                Roy still screwed up. He brought negative attention on himself by being socially unacceptable (in terms of cursing on TV and making a crude, childish remark). But he didn't say anything that actually deserves political condemnation, either, beyond the context of, "this is bad attention."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X