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

Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

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

  • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    However here is where I will disagree with you while somewhat agreeing with you. We have a very horrible casual fan base. I am in agreement with you on that. As long as we are one of the top 3 teams in the Eastern conference we can attract a decent attendance, as long as IU has a mediocre season and the Colts are just OK. But whenever we have a mediocre or below season and the other activities in town are at a higher level our attendance is mediocre at best.

    However while we have a horrible casual fan base, I believe we have an extraordinarily high die hard fan base. I believe the number is between 8-10 and those fans are there come hell or high water. So it would never get down to the 1-2 k number.
    This is 100% spot on. Which is why BLF crowd can be split 50/50 against certain teams but can also be completely electrifying in the playoffs.

    Comment


    • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

      Originally posted by I Love P View Post
      If you purchase single game tix on stubhub/Ticketmaster resale for every game yes. "Unofficial season ticket holder."
      Otherwise define as "living off of season ticket holders who pay the price for teams to be bad and therefore having no qualms about wanting the team to suck"
      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: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
        This is 100% spot on. Which is why BLF crowd can be split 50/50 against certain teams but can also be completely electrifying in the playoffs.
        That 50/50 thing can happen anywhere. Kobe, a Laker, getting MVP chants in freaking Boston...

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YsXPZVPIjxE

        I get people thinking it only happens in Indy because that's what the media tells us.

        Comment


        • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

          Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
          That 50/50 thing can happen anywhere. Kobe, a Laker, getting MVP chants in freaking Boston...

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YsXPZVPIjxE

          I get people thinking it only happens in Indy because that's what the media tells us.
          There's a bit of difference in a legend like Kobe getting MVP chants after a vintage performance and Bulls fans taking over 50% of BLF on a Tuesday.

          But you're right, im sure it happens periodically elsewhere. Milwaukee tends to have Bull fans take over their arena as well.

          Comment


          • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
            There's a bit of difference in a legend like Kobe getting MVP chants after a vintage performance and Bulls fans taking over 50% of BLF on a Tuesday.

            But you're right, im sure it happens periodically elsewhere. Milwaukee tends to have Bull fans take over their arena as well.
            Well, the Bulls are a much bigger metro, plus you have the Region which creates an army of people willing to pay crazy prices for STHs tickets. That doesn't say anything about the fan base in Indy.

            I would say it's far more embarrassing to have Boston getting invaded by perhaps the biggest rival in sports from the opposite side of the country.

            Comment


            • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

              The way the NBA markets, there are Warriors, Cavs, Bulls, Knicks fans in every arena during away games. When you give a crappy Knicks team WAY more exposure than a fun up and coming Bucks team this will happen.

              Comment


              • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                Well, are you assuming that Indy is the only place with scalpers and the other things you mentioned?

                I'm not commenting on the MSA days, downtown wasn't even a thing then.
                Hence why I said

                I assume this is typical of every team however I am not sure ticket brokers are legal everywhere?
                Also what do you mean exactly by downtown wasn't a thing then? For that matter why does downtown really matter that much, do you believe most people that attend games are from the downtown area? Most people I know who attend either come in from the the outlying area or the suburbs. There are those of us though who attend games who are not even from the Indy metro area.


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


                • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                  Originally posted by Peck View Post
                  Hence why I said
                  I saw that, but every city still has some type of resell market. So why would this matter when discussing % of arena sales?

                  Also what do you mean exactly by downtown wasn't a thing then? For that matter why does downtown really matter that much, do you believe most people that attend games are from the downtown area? Most people I know who attend either come in from the the outlying area or the suburbs. There are those of us though who attend games who are not even from the Indy metro area.
                  The expansion downtown is a huge deal. More people living and working downtown gives you more nearby traffic. I mean, just look at the IUPUI expansion and housing over past 8 years. They have those college deals for a reason. I've lived and worked downtown for 10 years and it helps a great deal to sell tickets when the city isn't completely dead around the circle almost every day of the week.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                    What evidence do we have that Nate is better at being firm with players than Frank other than some fluff PR pieces calling him Sarge?
                    I don't know, but then again what evidence do we have that they were just fluff PR pieces?

                    Comment


                    • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                      Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                      I saw that, but every city still has some type of resell market. So why would this matter when discussing % of arena sales?



                      The expansion downtown is a huge deal. More people living and working downtown gives you more nearby traffic. I mean, just look at the IUPUI expansion and housing over past 8 years. They have those college deals for a reason. I've lived and worked downtown for 10 years and it helps a great deal to sell tickets when the city isn't completely dead around the circle almost every day of the week.
                      Is that true? I have no idea. I know some places had made scalping illegal, however I'm not sure how a ticketmaster type of thing works.


                      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                      Comment


                      • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        Is that true? I have no idea. I know some places had made scalping illegal, however I'm not sure how a ticketmaster type of thing works.
                        NBA sponsors a ticket exchange.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                          A story Peck and I have told several times, but Paul George had the ball late against Dallas and the Mavs were threatening to make a run to close the gap, Nate tried to call something from the bench and Paul looked over at him like "What kind of **** is that?" waved off the call and ran a high pick and pop with Myles Turner that resulted in a bucket. That moment, literally 44 minutes into our season basically, was the moment you knew Nate didn't really have the chops to get it done with this team.
                          I feel like every time I speak up now it's making me seem more and more of a Nate guy, when the truth is I felt his hiring was very bland and uninspiring, and as of this moment I think they screwed up by firing Vogel.

                          That out of the way, this story is interesting to me. What did Paul do that signaled he was waiving it off? Are we 100% sure that's what he did, as opposed to some kind of look he might have given before actually doing whatever Nate was calling out? Did Paul literally say something back to Nate akin to 'wtf is that,' or was it just non-verbal?

                          I don't mean to be argumentative about this, it may have gone down exactly the way you saw it and interpreted it. But I have to wonder if maybe you guys read something into it? Maybe not.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                            NBA sponsors a ticket exchange.
                            Yea, I've actually used it a few times last year. It still plays out the same though. If a ticket broker still buys and sells on the secondary market it still shows up as a sold seat even if nobody buys the ticket to go.


                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment


                            • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              You guys laugh about this, but you know that Nate, KP and a lot of the leadership of those Blazer teams got busted for ignoring a pretty scathing report from an independent research firm they hired to examine the gaits and running patterns of their players right?

                              Roy and Oden in particular were suggested by this group that they needed more rest to heal existing injuries and the study even suggested that Oden should sit out like an entire year to heal and fix his running gait and the Blazers ignored the report.
                              Wow; never heard that one. Is there a link handy? That's pretty damning. At least KP acknowledged when he started in May that he's learned to listen to his medical staff, but good grief.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                                Isn't it telling that when Nate left Portland he was not hired as a head coach again for 4 years and when he was it was by a franchise that happened to already have him on the salary?
                                It is. But it's also weird he was part of the Team USA coaching staff if he's so bad or mediocre or whatnot. Team USA can't do better than him for a coaching staff position in that case? I don't know. I think the truth is somewhere in between on this. He's provably better than his naysayers, and probably still not that good.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X