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

Pacers losing their popularity, interesting article

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

  • #16
    Re: Pacers losing their popularity, interesting article

    I think there are some Pacer fans who will complain regardless.

    However, the brawl made people consider JO, Jackson, and Dustpan bad people. My dad for one loved JO the summer of 04 and this Christmas went on and on about how he was worthless.

    I don't have those negative feelings and it is a little frustrating because people don't think what I think. Oh well, I guess you have to allow people their feelings.
    "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

    "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Pacers losing their popularity, interesting article

      Sometimes I get tired of having 2-3 guys out with injuries and watching backups play all the time, thats why I don't tune in every game. I want to see a quality product.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Pacers losing their popularity, interesting article

        This is trash, it shows just how fair weather this state is. When the Colts are doing good, by God everyone is a Colts fan, but when they are losing, screw them.

        Same with the Pacers, come playoff time, the Fieldhouse is packed and it is an atmosphere like no other, but when they are struggling, forget it.

        This is trash and it pisses me off that things are like this. I wish the people that weren't fans all the time would just go away and not bother rooting for them.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Pacers losing their popularity, interesting article

          Originally posted by PacerFan31
          This is trash, it shows just how fair weather this state is. When the Colts are doing good, by God everyone is a Colts fan, but when they are losing, screw them.

          Same with the Pacers, come playoff time, the Fieldhouse is packed and it is an atmosphere like no other, but when they are struggling, forget it.

          This is trash and it pisses me off that things are like this. I wish the people that weren't fans all the time would just go away and not bother rooting for them.
          I refuse to tell people how to spend their extra money. If you'd rather save your money and go to the playoffs so be it. If you only have enough money to go to a Colts game or a Pacer game I don't blame you for going to watch the team that's actually winning on a consistant basis.

          If you only want die hard Pacer fans at the games then you'll have plenty of room to spread out as the size of the crowd will rival that of games in Atlanta.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Pacers losing their popularity, interesting article

            I think the injuries are probably a big part of. NBA is all about star-power and we just dont have much of that. Casual fans want to see the high-flyers like Lebron and Kobe.

            I dont really think the public sees JO as a bad man, if they did in the past I think he has probably redeemed himself through his "Im going to be the leader" campaign.

            @UB
            Through the TV, it seemed like the crowd was pretty pathetic most of the game. The commentators even talked about it, saying something like "Ive never seen so many fans up and walking around during a game". It didnt really seem like the crowd got into the game until we got our first lead, late in the 4th.

            To be honest, I was a bit ashamed considering how hard our guys were playing the whole game last night.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Pacers losing their popularity, interesting article

              Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR
              Through the TV, it seemed like the crowd was pretty pathetic most of the game. The commentators even talked about it, saying something like "Ive never seen so many fans up and walking around during a game".
              The only reason they commented about people up walking around is because they walked right in front of them.

              As for whether the crowd cheers or not I'm pretty much numb to it anymore. Like my sig used to say "I just don't care."

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Pacers losing their popularity, interesting article

                Originally posted by Unclebuck
                No one has come right and said this, but do you think that the brawl in and of itself 11/19 is hurting the Pacers popularity in Indianapolis. I really don't. 30 point blowouts hurt fan interest more than anything
                I think people have had questions about this team for a long while. Especially about its character at the core. As much good as the 03-04 season did to ease some of that (Artest in the playoffs not withstanding), 11/19 probably seemingly confirmed many's worst fears about the character and makeup of the team. It firmly darkened the cloud that already was above the team.

                And, IMHO, much of the concern was valid. We've not had, and still do not yet possess, a mentally strong team. These aren't necessarily a group of players that could put 11/19 behind them very easily.

                The 30 point blowouts go hand in hand with the whole cloud that continues to rain down on the team. Nobody likes losing. And nobody likes losing when there's a severe lack of effort or heart displayed.

                11/19 didn't cause the disconnect but it's certainly polarized it to some extent. And these players are having trouble rising above it... perhaps, not surprisingly when you take a step back and try to be objective about it.

                And management hasn't helped by doing very little about it. They threw no one under the bus and made no one accountable. They also didn't try to shift the blame or fight the suspensions (publically anyway) and rise above it that way. They simply hoped it would go away and work itself out. Typical Pacer response...

                The problems don't start and end with Artest.

                -Bball
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Pacers losing their popularity, interesting article

                  I'm not surprised by this at all. The Pacers have lost Reggie and play a boring style of basketball. Mix in the loss of our contender status, and it all makes sense.

                  With that said, I hope those bandwagoners don't come back if we manage to rebuild into a contender in the next few years. Losing NutBoy is a step in the right direction to bring back in the fans, but there will have to be an overall attitude overhaul to keep it goin'.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Pacers losing their popularity, interesting article

                    I don't like the term mentally tough. I think it is a term people throw around because it is hard to prove or disprove.

                    In my opinion there are only two mentally tough teams the Spurs and Pistons. The only way a team proves that they are mentally tough is to win a championship.

                    I mean were the 99 Pacers mentally tough when they fell apart against NY?

                    I also strongly disagree that people did not like the 61 win team or that that team did not give effort.
                    "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                    "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Pacers losing their popularity, interesting article

                      Originally posted by Arcadian
                      I don't like the term mentally tough. I think it is a term people throw around because it is hard to prove or disprove.

                      In my opinion there are only two mentally tough teams the Spurs and Pistons. The only way a team proves that they are mentally tough is to win a championship.
                      I disagree...
                      They prove it by keeping their head in the game. By not getting unneeded and untimely technical fouls. By passing the ball to an open teammate rather than pressing the offense just because their man scored on them or they haven't scored in a few possessions. They do it by sticking with the game plan. They do it by walking the walk after they talk the talk. They do it by not thumping their chests after a dunk... in a game where they're down by 15+ points. They do it by not CONSTANTLY harping with the refs. They do it by not allowing an opponent to get in their head. They do it by not pouting on the bench. They do it by caring about the teammates. They do it by caring about the scoreboard, not their stat line.


                      I also strongly disagree that people did not like the 61 win team or that that team did not give effort.
                      That team wasn't as popular as it could've been but I don't think anyone has argued that they weren't 'liked' or that they didn't give effort.

                      -Bball
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Pacers losing their popularity, interesting article

                        OK, name a mentally tough team that hasn't won a championship.

                        Bball, you said you think that people had a nagging feeling about the team's character and that they weren't as popular as they could have been. That is saying that they weren't well recieved.
                        "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                        "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Pacers losing their popularity, interesting article

                          Originally posted by Arcadian
                          OK, name a mentally tough team that hasn't won a championship.

                          .
                          I'm not sure I follow your point. Of course mentally tough teams win championships. It is one of the requirements to getting one (IMHO). But just being mentally tough may not get it done alone. I'm sure there are plenty of teams that have been mentally tough thru the years that haven't won a championship.

                          -Bball
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

                          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Pacers losing their popularity, interesting article

                            You agree with me that the Pistons and Spurs are mentally tough right? I'm just saying that mentally tough is an attributed to a team after they win a championship. If you disagree name a team that is mental tough but hasn't won a championship.
                            "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                            "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Pacers losing their popularity, interesting article

                              None of this suprises me.

                              I've come online for 6 years now & asked if people feel as connected to this team as they have in the past.

                              It's been apperant to me that there has been a big disconnect between the fans & this team since the 00 season.

                              Yes, sure online here the team is almost always well recieved. But there just has not been a buzz about this team in this town since the old team left.

                              Even the great 61 win team did not generate general public interest.

                              Why? I think it has to do with some of the characters of this club.

                              Like it or not fans in Indiana don't get behind immature players very well. I know some of you will find this hard to believe but Reggie was not universally loved in this town until after the mid-90's.

                              But even the biggest Reggie detractors never had a problem with Reggie the player off of the court or thought badly of him as a team mate.

                              Ron obviously was a magnate. He was like the Beatles in the fact that you either loved him or hated him but you knew who he was. I think the problem there was that while some people loved him most people (including the ones that love him) didn't trust him.

                              But let's not let J.O. off of the hook in this either. Many considered him a punk prima dona when he got here & some have never changed their minds.

                              We've never had a player as good as he was, but we never had a player a self centered as he was.

                              Take into the melting pot Jamaal Tinsley & Stephen Jackson. In those two you have players that the general fan just does not like.

                              The fact that this article even mentions Dale Davis & Brad Miller by name made me think that it was written just for me.

                              But also on top of this Shade hit one thing dead on. The Pacers play a boring style of basketball.

                              Now while Uncle Buck loves this & he will correctly say that people like winning the problem is that is litteraly devolves into a style of basketball that Hoosiers (& I'll throw my European friends in here as well) can't stand.

                              Isolation, individual basketball.

                              I'll go ahead & admit it now. Even when we were winning 61 games I could not stand & still cannot stand the "throw it to Jermaine" or even the "throw it to Ron" or the "throw it to Al" system that created no ball movement, no player movement & resulted in one guy dribbling the ball for 6-8 seconds before he would turn around for a fadeaway jump shot.

                              Yes, it may be a style of winning basketball. But it's boring & here is the problem, it's NOT the only style of winning basketball that there is.

                              Do I want a free flowing 80's style of Denver game? No, Hell no.

                              But look at the Larry Brown Pacer teams & you will see a team that played killer defense & still had a variety of offensive sets.

                              We built this team on Ron & Jermaine & that was flawed from the get go. Not only because Ron was unstable, but Jermaine was not the most mature human being either.

                              I don't think the fans connect with anybody on this team yet.

                              Now there is hope though. Danny Granger could be that person but the problem is I don't know if his religion will allow him to be in commercials for the club.

                              I'm not kidding, I don't know.

                              If he could & if he could learn to smile the Pacers right now should start running commercials with him in them.

                              He's knew & has no baggage.


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

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Pacers losing their popularity, interesting article

                                Teams that know how to win in the crunch, aren't constantly whining, know how to play together, to put their differences aside,etc are mentally tough. Any team that is a true contender will ultimately be mentally tough. There are of course degrees here. Any of the top teams in the league are mentally tough to one degree or another. It's not something exclusice to a champion. And the Spurs won last year but that doesn't make Detroit mentally weak.

                                I guess I'm not following your point unless you claim there can only be one mentally tough team... or that once a team wins a championship they will be mentally tough forever.

                                The Pacers circa 94-2000 were mentally tough (IMO) and never won a championship.

                                Maybe we are debating the difference in our definitions???

                                -BBall
                                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                                ------

                                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                                -John Wooden

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X