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

Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

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

  • Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

    Is today Troll GrangeRushHibbert Day? *****... I'm half tempted to hit the report button.

    Comment


    • Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

      Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
      have you been following the story for the past 4 years? They had an agreement to keep the team in Sacramento had a plan to build a new arena last year both parties agreed and the douches that the Maloofs are backed out.
      It's funny because I was just ripping a game from last year and this exact item was on the crawl - the arena agreement was done and it would keep the Kings in town. I had forgotten about that.

      Comment


      • Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

        Originally posted by 2minutes twoa View Post
        The Maloofs should never be able to enter an NBA arena without getting booed!
        "I think they are screaming 'Malooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooof'"

        Comment


        • Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

          Sacramento certainly has supported their team, I will not argue that in the least. But to be fair to Seattle I think the video/stats posted by Grangerushibbert is a bit misleading and understates the support Seattle had for the Sonics.

          One thing about the capacity numbers that seems incorrect is that they don't account for 2 issues in Seattle - they played 94-95 in the Tacoma Dome, not in Seattle, and before the Key Arena redo that year the arena held about 14,000 for basketball, and was upped to 17,000 afterward.

          Also along those lines you have one city getting a brand new team (see Indy selling out Colts games in year 1) and shortly after getting a new arena which was dramatically nicer than Key prior to it's own rebuild in 94-95 (it was nearly 30 years old, and SMALLER THAN ARCO even with the rebuild).

          So a new NBA show in town with only 10000 seats to sell for the first 3 seasons, then a brand new arena after that to refresh interest. Meanwhile a team is playing in something about 10 years older than MSA, has been around forever, and has a title and another Finals in it's recent history. For comparison just look at the dip in Sacto's own attendance once you get out past "new" and "winning" and into some "old news, down seasons" era, like 97-98 or 07-08.

          The year the new Key Arena opened they basically sold out the whole year. "Magically" they start selling 3000 more seats and reach that 17000 average attendance. Whoever made that video clearly forgot about the Key upgrade AND the fact that the Sonics used to schedule a few games in Tacoma much the way the Celtics used to play away from Boston (Hartford?).

          When you take into account that old Key Arena was 3000 seats smaller you see that the Sonics were 100% capacity for every 50 win season, apart from just missing it in 04-05. And given the fact that circa 85-86 the team had gone from title caliber to 31 wins, it's understandable that attendance that year was low. Wilkins had been fired after 31 wins and Bickerstaff came on and won 31 again in 85-86 when this chart starts.

          As soon as they started playing better the attendance went up and hit capacity during the prime winning seasons.

          And previously they'd been a massive draw too while playing in the KINGDOME (which had just opened). From 78-79 to 81-82 (4 seasons) they LED THE NBA in total attendance, even though in that 3rd season they were sub-500 and didn't make the playoffs. This is what a taste of winning and a cool new stadium can do for a fanbase, as well as having a big enough venue. They SET THE NBA RECORD for attendance at the time during the 78-79 season, just 7 years prior to the Kings start/chart start. They had at the time single game playoff records for attendance with a staggering 39,000 and 40,000 for 2 different games.

          They then started to slip AND moved back to Seattle Center/Key. With this their attendance fell back. The last 2 years of the Kingdome they were 10th and 20th in NBA attendance. The first year at Seattle Center they were last and the team was about to fire Wilkins for the first of two 31 win seasons.


          Adjusted numbers for smaller Key pre-update:

          85-86: Sonics (31-51) 57%
          86-87: Sonics (39-43) 62%
          87-88: Sonics (44-38) 86%
          88-89: Sonics (47-35) 92%
          89-90: Sonics (41-41) 87%
          90-91: Sonics (41-41) 89%
          91-92: Sonics (47-35) 100%
          92-93: Sonics (55-27) 100%
          93-94: Sonics (63-19) 100%

          94-95: Sonics (57-25) ??? - unsure if Tacoma Dome should be expected to hold 17K for Sonics games, if you live in Seattle or know someone who does then you know that Sonics season ticket holders in the Seattle area aren't just zipping 30-40 minutes over to Tacoma. This would be having the Warriors move down to San Jose for only 1 season, except that probably more ticket holders work in the San Jose or San Fran area than Sonics ticket holders live/work in Tacoma.




          The point is that Seattle earned it's rep long before Sacto had a team even. Comparing the new Kings in a new arena to the old Sonics in an old arena is about the same as comparing the Kings attendance currently vs 10 years ago. Seattle had proven to be one of the best NBA markets in the NBA despite not being a 1 team town. We might as well debate over whether Kansas City or Cleveland is the better NFL town.



          The other point is that I'm an uptight, detail oriented stats freak.

          Comment


          • Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

            Originally posted by rabidpacersfan View Post
            OT and sorry to start a fight here but am I the only one that finds GrangeRushHibbert's avatar very offensive (the "America's Suicide Capital" part, not the photo), aside from being (I think) a forum rules violation?

            And GrangeRushHibbert have you ever even been to Portland before? And didn't we have a long thread on this very topic last year?

            FYI your facts are wrong anyway. http://www.businessinsider.com/most-...es-2011-7?op=1

            Sorry guys I really can't let this one go, super offensive. I've had friends and their family members commit suicide in my lifetime, it's nothing to joke about.
            Thought Police on Patrol.

            Your personal life experience does not dictate what somebody else thinks about the city of Portland. Get over it.

            His Location tag was not directed at any individual in a derogatory way . I don't see how its worthy of your relentless scrutiny.
            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

            Comment


            • Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
              Thought Police on Patrol.

              Your personal life experience does not dictate what somebody else thinks about the city of Portland. Get over it.

              His Location tag was not directed at any individual in a derogatory way . I don't see how its worthy of your relentless scrutiny.
              You seem to be confused about the difference between "thought" and "speech." He didn't think it, he posted it.

              His avatar was a photo saying "Portland Sucks" and his tagline was "America's Suicide Capital." I don't think it's much of a stretch to call that highly offensive.

              His reaction to being challenged on it was to change his avatar, pretend it never happened, and accuse me of "trolling" him. So there's that.

              He's on my ignore list so I'm done with it from here on out.

              Finally, speaking of speech, it's my right to express displeasure with the content of someone's post. Get over it.
              Last edited by rabid; 01-25-2013, 10:33 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

                Originally posted by rabidpacersfan View Post
                You seem to be confused about the difference between "thought" and "speech." He didn't think it, he posted it.

                His avatar was a photo saying "Portland Sucks" and his tagline was "America's Suicide Capital." I don't think it's much of a stretch to call that highly offensive.

                His reaction to being challenged on it was to change his avatar, pretend it never happened, and accuse me of "trolling" him. So there's that.

                He's on my ignore list so I'm done with it from here on out.

                Finally, speaking of speech, it's my right to express displeasure with the content of someone's post. Get over it.
                You're correct, its your right to complain about whatever grinds your gears, regardless how frivolous or self righteous it may be.
                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                Comment


                • Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

                  Sacramento has done everything that should be needed to keep their team. If you do everything that they have done then you shouldn't lose your team.
                  "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                  Comment


                  • Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

                    Since I helped derail the thread I'll get back on-topic. I'd really like to see the Kings stay in Sacramento, the city seems to really really want to keep the team and they've had a loyal fanbase over the years.

                    I hate that this has sort of been turned into a Seattle vs. Sacramento discussion. I think BOTH cities deserve teams. Hopefully this will pan out for everyone in the long run.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

                      Seattle should just wait until there is a team that doesn't have a city that wants to build a new arena.
                      "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                      Comment


                      • Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

                        And where were these buyers when they were trying to find a local buyer to keep the team in Seattle to begin with?
                        "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                        Comment


                        • Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

                          Originally posted by rabidpacersfan View Post
                          His reaction to being challenged on it was to change his avatar, pretend it never happened, and accuse me of "trolling" him. So there's that.
                          No, my reaction to it was to quietly change it just to stop you from trolling, to be blunt. There was never any, "pretend it never happened." That's just a figment of your imagination.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

                            Whether or not he's right, that's certainly how it looked.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

                              I used the Portland Sucks/Suicide Capital avatar/tagline combo for months.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

                                I've been taking in the conversation about the Kings franchise over on the KingsFans forum and one of the posters asked me to share this video synopsis of the last 4 years of the situation...
                                ...Still "flying casual"
                                @roaminggnome74

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X