Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

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

  • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

    Originally posted by cdash View Post
    Different fans have different motivations for buying tickets to games.
    What the buyer's motivation is for purchasing a product is irrelevant. The NBA and it's teams sells tickets to watch two teams play each other. Why you want to watch those teams doesn't change the fact that you're only buying entry to watch those two teams. As long as those two teams play, you get exactly what was offered.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      Given the way the NBA markets stars instead of teams, one could make a case that there is an expectation being set up that the player is the product, not the team. If they don't want the consequences of disappointing customers by missetting expectations, they need to stop promoting players rather than teams.
      I can only imagine the pitch meetings trying to come up with ideas on how to market teams without players in the ads so consumers with little ability to think rationally aren't confused.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        I can only imagine the pitch meetings trying to come up with ideas on how to market teams without players in the ads so consumers with little ability to think rationally aren't confused.
        So, basically, you believe that the only thing marketable about the NBA is star players and marketing in any other way is impossible.

        And you believe that advertising "come buy tickets to see LeBron James play" doesn't constitute setting expectations that, you know, LeBron James will actually PLAY.
        BillS

        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

        Comment


        • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          So, basically, you believe that the only thing marketable about the NBA is star players and marketing in any other way is impossible.
          How in the world did you get that out of what I said?

          It's 100% perfectly logical to think that the NBA would use it's players on teams to market games involving said teams. Instead of focusing on the back of the jersey in the ad, focusing on the front would clear it ALL up. If you think you're entitled to see a certain player, rather than the team, I'm not going to be able to fix your problems. It's pretty clear. One simple glance at the ticket you bought should clear up the confusion on what/who you're paying to see.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            What the buyer's motivation is for purchasing a product is irrelevant. The NBA and it's teams sells tickets to watch two teams play each other. Why you want to watch those teams doesn't change the fact that you're only buying entry to watch those two teams. As long as those two teams play, you get exactly what was offered.
            Yes, again, I understand the transactional nature of your argument. I don't think it's 100% that black and white for the NBA, because ultimately, these people are the consumers of their product and they want to keep them happy and coming back.

            Comment


            • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              I don't think it's 100% that black and white for the NBA, because ultimately, these people are the consumers of their product and they want to keep them happy and coming back.
              And it's nearly impossible to do this based on the motivation whims of the consumers, considering all the different motivations for purchasers. Someone who wants to see player X and someone who wants to flip that ticket for a profit are all buying the same thing, regardless of their motivation for doing so. The NBA can't provide a catch-call to satisfy those motivations. What they can do, is offer up their product of Team A playing Team B. That's it.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                How in the world did you get that out of what I said?

                It's 100% perfectly logical to think that the NBA would use it's players on teams to market games involving said teams. Instead of focusing on the back of the jersey in the ad, focusing on the front would clear it ALL up. If you think you're entitled to see a certain player, rather than the team, I'm not going to be able to fix your problems. It's pretty clear. One simple glance at the ticket you bought should clear up the confusion on what/who you're paying to see.
                Do you really think I'm talking about some kind of NBA ads that say (for example) "Pacers v. Cavs" and just happen to show LeBron on the floor scrimmaging with 9 other players? I am talking about the ads and billboards that explicitly say (for example) "LeBron James and the Cavs" or show only LeBron and say "Pacers vs. Cavs". The NBA gears almost all of its marketing not toward showing teams and incidentally catching a star but on showing the stars and incidentally mentioning the team. If this is how they choose to advertise - and they do - then they need to accept the consequences of not actually delivering "LeBron James and the Cavs".
                BillS

                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                Comment


                • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

                  Sounds like you're set up to get bank from the NBA for false advertisement then. Don't be surprised when it's tossed out though and they point to the fact that the ticket you purchased explicitly tells you that you've bought entry to see two teams play each other.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

                    Pretty good article about PG and Cris Lavert (who we traded for Young)



                    Indiana Pacers: Paul George


                    [George’s 2015 return from a compound fracture in his right lower leg was remarkable; he averaged 27.5 points over the first 20 games of the 2015–16 season, and looked better than he did prior to the injury. But he didn’t maintain that level of play. Since 2013 (and not counting his injury-shortened season), George has averaged 22.2 points per game on 17.1 shots per game. That is great, but it’s not extraordinary; 22 points on 17 shots are Joe Johnson–type numbers, not franchise cornerstone averages. The best NBA superstars consistently average 25-plus points per game, and George has done that only in spurts

                    A big problem for George is his inability to consistently get to the line; of players to average at least 17 shots per game since 2013, George’s free throw rate and scoring efficiency are both average. George is still young (he turns 27 in May), but he hasn’t shown that dynamic next-level ability that we’ve been teased with.

                    Last week, Pacers president of basketball operations Larry Bird listened to trade offers for George. None of them were acceptable, and Bird was right to wait until the summer to find something better. He will demand a huge return for George, and maybe he’ll get it, but smart teams need to be cautious about going overboard

                    The Pacers are average but not good, and maybe that’s because George is terrific but not transcendent. Right now the hype exceeds reality when it comes to George’s stardom. The microscope will be on George more than ever. With the potential for a trade, eyes will be on his body language, effort, and every word he speaks to the media. It’s time for him to rise to the next level. If he does, and he achieves All-NBA honors, the Pacers will be able to pay him a mega-extension that could increase their chances of retaining their star

                    In an /r/NBA thread titled “Being hopeless,” Reddit user Cloone11 wrote, “As a net fan I cannot believe that one gm could screw our future so badly … Like what’s the point of even following this team. I am but it just hurts … It sucks. It’s painful. It’s hell.” Look to rookie LeVert for hope. He likely would’ve been a lottery pick if it weren’t for concerns regarding his foot. Nets general manager Sean Marks needed to take calculated risks, and LeVert so far is looking like a shrewd one.

                    At 6-foot-7, LeVert has the size of a wing with the passing vision of a guard, which makes him a mismatch in the pick-and-roll. The rookie generates an effective 1 point per possession on pick-and-roll shots, passes, and drawn fouls, per Synergy Sports.

                    LeVert’s body control, feel, and improvisational skills are reminiscent of a prime Jamal Crawford; he knows how to slow down and rev up, a skill most guards don’t develop for years. When he penetrates the lane, he throws dart passes. LeVert has the tools to be a glue guy who makes his teammates better. The Nets have two late first-round picks in the 2017 NBA draft, and with those selections, Marks should look to take a few more swings on high-upside players who drop due to auxiliary concerns.



                    In hindsight, I don't think Young was worth the trade, as LeVert seems like a similar player, maybe a little shorter, I rather have the combo of LeVert/Turner/Mahinmi rather than Young/Turner/Jefferson

                    Currently we are paying Young/Jefferson 23 million (14 + 9) and Mahinmi and LeVert would be 17.6 (16 + 1.6) albeit Ian has a 4 year contract in comparison to Young and Jefferson who we have for two more years.


                    Last edited by immortality; 03-20-2017, 02:28 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

                      Best Defensive Ratings, since All-Star break:

                      1. Warriors — 100.1
                      2. Spurs — 101.3
                      3. Raptors — 101.7
                      4. Celtics — 102.0
                      5. Pacers — 102.6

                      Comment


                      • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

                        Originally posted by immortality View Post
                        Pretty good article about PG and Cris Lavert (who we traded for Young)



                        In hindsight, I don't think Young was worth the trade, as LeVert seems like a similar player, maybe a little shorter, I rather have the combo of LeVert/Turner/Mahinmi rather than Young/Turner/Jefferson

                        Currently we are paying Young/Jefferson 23 million (14 + 9) and Mahinmi and LeVert would be 17.6 (16 + 1.6) albeit Ian has a 4 year contract in comparison to Young and Jefferson who we have for two more years.


                        [/FONT][/FONT]
                        Don't think the Pacers would have taken LaVert, although who knows. Certainly one of the more impressive rookies in this draft class (though that isn't saying much). Shades of Joe Johnson.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          What the buyer's motivation is for purchasing a product is irrelevant.
                          Really?

                          Comment


                          • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            Sounds like you're set up to get bank from the NBA for false advertisement then. Don't be surprised when it's tossed out though and they point to the fact that the ticket you purchased explicitly tells you that you've bought entry to see two teams play each other.
                            Get that straw man outta here. He's not saying that. He's doing a fine job of making my case IMO.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              Really?
                              Yes, really. The NBA doesn't give two ***** what your motivation is for buying their product, as long as you buy their product.

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              Get that straw man outta here. He's not saying that. He's doing a fine job of making my case IMO.
                              He said the NBA should suffer the consequences. If you're arguing that it's false advertisement, which he is, then there are laws to compensate you and punish those responsible. Unless your "consequences" is just internet *****ing which it seems to be so since you spend so much time on an internet message board dedicated to a child's game that you voluntarily waste your time with.

                              What is it that you're looking for? An apology? "I'm sorry you weren't smart enough to realize that you were buying entrance into a basketball game that was fulfilled." You'll be extremely lucky to even get that condescension.
                              Last edited by Since86; 03-20-2017, 02:52 PM.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The 2016-2017 NBA Random Thoughts Thread, 13th of its name: Kingslayers

                                Originally posted by JB24 View Post
                                Don't think the Pacers would have taken LaVert, although who knows. Certainly one of the more impressive rookies in this draft class (though that isn't saying much). Shades of Joe Johnson.
                                Agree. I don't think we would have taken LaVert. Plus no way would I want any part of Ian's contract unless its part of an Al Jeff trade

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X