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

"Law & Order" Cancelled

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    "Law & Order" Cancelled

    http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.co...er=rss&emc=rss



    NBC confirmed Friday that it had canceled the original “Law & Order,” bringing an end to a 20-year-old television drama that jump-started an era of television production in New York City.

    “Law & Order” was on the verge of becoming the longest-running drama in prime-time television history, surpassing “Gunsmoke.” But it appears that the “Law & Order” executive producer, Dick Wolf, has settled for a tie. The final episode of the series will be shown on May 24, NBC confirmed in a news release Friday.

    Actors and producers on the program were told Thursday that the series had been canceled, but NBC and Mr. Wolf remained in conversations through Thursday evening, apparently in an attempt to make a deal for a 21st season.

    NBC said Friday that it had ordered a new series, “Law & Order: Los Angeles,” or “LOLA” for short. It also renewed “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” for another season. The network plans to officially announce its 2010-11 schedule on Monday in New York.

    Jeff Gaspin, the chairman of NBC Universal Television Entertainment, said in a statement: “The full measure of the collective contributions made by Dick Wolf and his ‘Law & Order’ franchise over the last two decades to the success of NBC and Universal Media Studios cannot be overstated. The legacy of his original ‘Law & Order’ series will continue to make an impact like no other series before.”

    Indeed, the original series will still be seen in reruns on cable. Nonetheless, Fred Berner, an executive producer of the show based in New York, said Thursday that the cancellation is a “kick in the gut to New York.”

    By one estimate, more than 8,000 people in the city are employed, directly and indirectly, by the series and its two spinoffs. The franchise has been especially important to the many Broadway and Off Broadway actors who make appearances on the shows.

    Many will stay employed by the two spinoffs. Still, the end of the original show — often called “the mothership” internally — “will be a devastating blow to the New York City production community,” Mr. Berner said.

    Mr. Berner was standing outside a Broadway theater when he was reached on his cellphone Thursday evening. “I guarantee you, every name in the playbill will have appeared on ‘Law & Order,’ one of the three shows,” he said.

    Spotting a “Law & Order” shoot on the streets of Manhattan and Brooklyn is almost a rite of passage for New Yorkers.

    John Johnston, the executive director of the New York Production Alliance, recently told NBC’s “Today” show that “Dick Wolf is really the one you can point to and say he re-established shooting television in New York.”

    “Law & Order” had its premiere in September 1990. A total of 456 episodes have been produced.

    The series has averaged about eight million viewers so far this season, half as many as it averaged a decade ago. But in the splintering universe of broadcast television, the ratings and the profits in syndication have been high enough to sustain the series. Many in the television business had expected NBC to renew the original series this month, if only to allow Mr. Wolf to beat “Gunsmoke,” a record he has long sought.

    Ed Zuckerman, a former co-executive producer of the series, described himself as stunned by the news of the cancellation. “It’s been such a pillar of the television world we all live in,” he said Thursday.

    Analysts say “Law & Order” redefined the crime genre on television by juxtaposing the stories of police officers and prosecutors. An off-screen narrator explained the premise of the series at the start of each self-contained hour-long episode: “In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime; and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories.”

    Kerry McCluggage, who was the president of Universal TV when “Law & Order” premiered in 1990, said the series had “influenced all the procedural dramas that have come in its wake.”

    The series specialized in so-called “ripped from the headlines” plots that reminded viewers of real-life crimes and trials. “Dick always said the bible for the show is the front page of The New York Post,” Mr. Zuckerman said. (He is an occasional contributor to The New York Times.)

    By some estimates, “Law & Order” and its spinoffs represent a $1 billion industry for the many companies involved. The three franchises have been remarkably lucrative in syndication, in part because they are repeated so many times by cable channels like USA and TNT.

    The franchise’s tentacles also extend well beyond New York: versions of the show have been produced in Russia and France, and last year, a London variation debuted on ITV in the United Kingdom.

    Even before NBC confirmed the cancellation, there was speculation that a cable channel would pick up “Law & Order.” TNT, which resurrected another NBC cop drama, “Southland,” last year, said Thursday evening it was “not in ongoing discussions” about giving a series a second life.

    Mr. Zuckerman noted that the crime rate in New York has declined markedly in the twenty years that “Law & Order” has fictionalized the city’s seedy underbelly. “I think there are literally more murders on those three shows in Manhattan each year than there are real murders in Manhattan,” he said.
    Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
    I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: "Law & Order" Cancelled

    Outside of their Thursday night lineup, I really don't understand what NBC is doing. Apparently they had a deal in place back in March to give the show a 21st season, but then changed their collective mind. Unless this is just a pissing contest with Dick Wolf, I don't understand how you plan to launch a new spinoff whilst simultaneously denying the original show a record breaking final season. Not even a short order (10 eps?) to end the show and lead into a new one? It's expensive to produce, obviously, but this seems more like "cut off your nose to spite your face" reasoning.

    Also Law & Order: Los Angeles exemplifies how terrible the folks at the top of NBC are at their jobs. They had a well rated LA cop drama (Southland) that they cancelled after producing but not airing a second season and now want to give it another try with Dick Wolf - who didn't exactly knock his Dragnet reboot out of the park?
    Last edited by avoidingtheclowns; 05-14-2010, 01:43 PM.
    This is the darkest timeline.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: "Law & Order" Cancelled

      Think of Law and Order like Jermaine O'Neal. Best player? Yes. Hobbled with injury? Yes. Expensive to the point of not being worth it anymore? Absolutely.

      NBC prime is hemorrhaging cash. The top-top-top level brass has told the head of programming that the bull**** needs to stop and they need artistic PROFITABLE programming.

      Fact of the matter is, L&O's audience was not proportionate with its gigantic production cost - most of the money of which went to its cast and creators. Legacy aside, it was time to pull the plug a couple of years ago, but they signed a long term deal many years before that. Just like JO's guaranteed contract.
      “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

      “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: "Law & Order" Cancelled

        I'll always treasure the re-runs on TNT from the 90's and early 2000's when the show was gold. But it has been awful since about 05 or 06 as it became a revolving door of ADAs and poor detectives (the guy who replaced Orbach was good -too bad he was just on a year, but the ones they have had since have been poor), not to mention the fact that it became waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too political. The decision to take Sam Watterson out of the court room was also a bad one. I quit watching new episodes about 4 years ago but have never stopped watching the classic re-runs.

        How does Jeff Zucker still have a job? NBC used to be the gold standard as far as quality network program was concerned. Now it's a complete joke.
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 05-14-2010, 02:16 PM.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: "Law & Order" Cancelled

          Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
          Fact of the matter is, L&O's audience was not proportionate with its gigantic production cost - most of the money of which went to its cast and creators. Legacy aside, it was time to pull the plug a couple of years ago, but they signed a long term deal many years before that.
          I'm not going to debate that. I guess I just disagree and think that NBC is pot-committed with this show. They didn't send it to the farm upstate like they should have many years ago and toughed it out until now only to fold on the river? Why cancel it when it'd make the most sense to keep it around for a handful of episodes (considering the way you could market a final season and launch the new spinoff)?
          This is the darkest timeline.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: "Law & Order" Cancelled

            Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
            I'm not going to debate that. I guess I just disagree and think that NBC is pot-committed with this show. They didn't send it to the farm upstate like they should have many years ago and toughed it out until now only to fold on the river? Why cancel it when it'd make the most sense to keep it around for a handful of episodes (considering the way you could market a final season and launch the new spinoff)?
            In keeping with the poker theme: Don't send good money chasing after bad money. There's no point in paying good money to see the river when no card will save you.

            And let's switch back to basketball. There's also a point where you tell Isiah Thomas that he's not allowed to spend a single dime or make a single move without authorization and you won't authorize anything that even smells like his idea ever again. That moment happens after he's fouled up everything in sight but before his ridiculously gigantic contract is over. Zucker is pretty much the I.T. of television.
            “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

            “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: "Law & Order" Cancelled

              LA - the early buzz on NBC's new fall shows is pretty positive.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: "Law & Order" Cancelled

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                LA - the early buzz on NBC's new fall shows is pretty positive.
                What buzz specifically? I've only heard buzz about the new comedy Outsourced - everything else seems like standard fare. LOLA will have law, and order, in LA. Chase is another Bruckheimer procedural show. Garza/Outlaw was picked up but needs lots of work -- they only picked it up after Jimmy Smits was testing really well despite the rest of the messy pilot (they were considering not even picking it up but offering him a spot on LOLA). Friends with Benefits was a sloppy second as ABC passed on the show in Feb. A comedy about couples called Perfect Couples. There are two more legal dramas: Rex is Not Your Lawyer and David E. Kelly's Kindreds. Sounds like they're passing on retread shows like the new comedy about stuff that's annoying from Paul Reiser as well as the troubled Beach Lane and the reboot of Rockford Files.
                This is the darkest timeline.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: "Law & Order" Cancelled

                  Counting on new shows to save your network is kind of like counting on your draftees to save your basketball team.

                  NBC will be in serious trouble for a while.
                  “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                  “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: "Law & Order" Cancelled

                    I still watch L&O, but it's really low on my DTV priority list.

                    The show has gone down hill in recent years, but there's a lot worse stuff on TV though. Moving to Mondays was a bad idea, the Friday time slot was better IMO.
                    "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: "Law & Order" Cancelled

                      I loved when it was on Wednesdays. It was a nice thing to look forward to mid week.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: "Law & Order" Cancelled

                        I'll miss it... But, it was probably time! I just hope that Sam Watterson ends up somewhere fairly soon other than investment bank commercials.
                        ...Still "flying casual"
                        @roaminggnome74

                        Comment

                        Previous template Next
                        Working...
                        X