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

Indianapolis to announce bid for 2011 Super Bowl

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

  • #16
    Re: Indianapolis to announce bid for 2011 Super Bowl

    Just for reference here are some of the smaller cities that have already hosted at least one SuperBowl within the last 15 years or so.
    Granted most are warm weather cities, but we're basing this off the argument that Indy is too small to host an event of this size.


    1982 Pontiac, MI (30 Miles outside of Detroit)
    66,337
    20 Square Miles
    3,318 people per Square Mile
    (Bloomington 69,291)

    Tempe 1996
    40 Square Miles
    3,959 people per Square Mile
    Population 158,62
    ( Ft. Wayne 205,727)

    Tampa 1984, 1991, 2000
    Population 303,447
    112 Square Miles
    2708 people pe Square Mile
    (Compare to Pittsburgh 334,563)

    Miami
    362,470
    35.7 Square Miles
    12,501 people per Square Mile

    Minneapolis 1992
    Population 382,618
    54.9 Square Miles
    6,970 people per Square Mile
    (Compare to Nashville 545,525)

    Jackonsville
    735,617
    757.7 Square Miles
    971 people per Square Mile

    Indy
    781,870
    361 Square Miles
    2163 People per Square Mile


    2000 Census
    Granted Population doesn't tell the whole story, but an interesting reference nonetheless.

    Why Not Us ?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Indianapolis to announce bid for 2011 Super Bowl

      Originally posted by Frank Slade
      Just for reference here are some of the smaller cities that have already hosted at least one SuperBowl within the last 15 years or so.
      Granted most are warm weather cities, but we're basing this off the argument that Indy is too small to host an event of this size.


      1982 Pontiac, MI (30 Miles outside of Detroit)
      66,337
      20 Square Miles
      3,318 people per Square Mile
      (Bloomington 69,291)

      Tempe 1996
      40 Square Miles
      3,959 people per Square Mile
      Population 158,62
      ( Ft. Wayne 205,727)

      Tampa 1984, 1991, 2000
      Population 303,447
      112 Square Miles
      2708 people pe Square Mile
      (Compare to Pittsburgh 334,563)

      Miami
      362,470
      35.7 Square Miles
      12,501 people per Square Mile

      Minneapolis 1992
      Population 382,618
      54.9 Square Miles
      6,970 people per Square Mile
      (Compare to Nashville 545,525)

      Jackonsville
      735,617
      757.7 Square Miles
      971 people per Square Mile

      Indy
      781,870
      361 Square Miles
      2163 People per Square Mile


      2000 Census
      Granted Population doesn't tell the whole story, but an interesting reference nonetheless.


      You're looking at CITY population. City population means nothing when determining how big an area is.

      For example. The Miami city population is 362,470 and the Indy city population is 781,870.....as you stated.

      But the metro area of Miami is 5.4 million (6th largest in the country). The Indy metro population is 1.64 million (a distant 34th largest metro area).

      See how misleading city population is? All city pop measures is the people within city limits. Indy annexed the entire county, so it has huge city limits.

      Miami Beach doesn't count within the 362,470 Miami residents. However, it's an integral part of the greater Miami area.

      You use the population of Tempe to give the notion that it's a small area, but Tempe is part of the Phoenix metro area, which is the 14th largest in the United States.

      It's misleading when people say Indy is the 12th largest city in the country. By city population, it's bigger than Boston, Miami, Atlanta, Denver. But all 4 of those cities of superior metropolitan areas, and have a much larger economic and cultural impact than Indianapolis.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Indianapolis to announce bid for 2011 Super Bowl

        When does Miami bid on the winter Olympics? Obviously you can't have a party atmosphere in the cold climates they keep taking those events and it's time to get them in the sunshine! It's only fair to the fans and followers of the Winter Olympics.

        -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


        • #19
          Re: Indianapolis to announce bid for 2011 Super Bowl

          Originally posted by Frank Slade
          Disclaimer:Just for reference here are some of the smaller cities that have already hosted at least one SuperBowl within the last 15 years or so.
          Granted most are warm weather cities, but we're basing this off the argument that Indy is too small to host an event of this size.
          Originally posted by Frank Slade
          Disclaimer:
          Granted Population doesn't tell the whole story, but an interesting reference nonetheless.
          Ok I do realize I may not have not made my point clear I guess.
          First of all when I say "smaller" cities I meant relatively , meaning here are the smaller "cities" as population defines that have hosted a SB.

          By no means did I mean specifically mean smaller than Indy.
          And yes ,I am well aware of the specific metro areas that surround cities like Miami, Tempe etc. And as of 2000 Indy was the 29th largest Metro Area.

          I always like to say we are really the largest town that happens to be a city, or the smallest "big" city in the U.S. We are in no way like most Pro Sports Cities I think most know that.

          I do know that we continue to host the FFA convention that runs about 50,000 total visitors. Final Four 70-80,000. Now neither of those are the100,000 plus that a SB would bring but it at least gives you an idea of the size of certain events we have been able to host. While you can easily point out countless cities with larger infrastructure. Indy is certainly set up as a great convention or event town.

          I know we are not Miami, but we are not Mayberry either.

          Why Not Us ?

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Indianapolis to announce bid for 2011 Super Bowl

            Miami hot topic: Indy's Super Bowl bid

            By Steve Ballard
            steve.ballard@indystar.com

            MIAMI - NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell addressed Indianapolis' bid for the 2011 Super Bowl this morning at his annual a pre-Super Bowl news conference.

            Goodell said he has had several discussions with Mayor Bart Peterson and regards Indianapolis as a viable host city.

            "They're building a tremendous stadium and have got a great community," Goodell said. "I think they have a lot of things they'll present. It's my job to make sure the job is done in a fair and open process and I will do that."

            Colts owner Jim Irsay has pledged $1 million to finance the bidding process. Arizona, host of next year's Super Bowl XLII, and Dallas are the other announced contenders
            IndyStar

            Just a blurb from the star today

            Why Not Us ?

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Indianapolis to announce bid for 2011 Super Bowl

              I think Indy has a good shot. It is just as cold in Detroit as it is in Indy, and they have hosted it a couple of times (Pontiac is north of Detroit...but for all practical purposes...it is the Detroit metro area). I think the key thing is having a dome so people don't have to freeze to death. I have seen games in Foxborough and in the Meadowlands, and it gets painfully cold at both locations.

              As has been mentioned too, Indy has a good reputation for hosting sporting events. The 500 is one of, if not the largest sporting event crowd in the country.

              Make no mistake, it isn't in the top 20 of cities on the preferred list, but with some solid lobbying, and a new stadium, I think Indy has a great shot.
              When you're playing against a stacked deck, compete even harder. Show the world how much you'll fight for the winners circle. If you do, someday the cellophane will crackle off a fresh pack, one that belongs to you, and the cards will be stacked in your favor.
              -Pat Riley

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Indianapolis to announce bid for 2011 Super Bowl

                It may be warmer elsewhere BUT it would be warm and DRY inside Indy's stadium
                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: Indianapolis to announce bid for 2011 Super Bowl

                  While in Tucson this weekend, my colleagues had a great suggestion:

                  The winner of the Super Bowl should be host team for the next season's SuperBowl.

                  That way, (1) a team gets a "chance" to defend its SuperBowl championship at home (or, in my case, fumbles away that chance during the first eight games of the season )

                  And, it ensures that the game is played in bad weather occasionally, and that, IMO, is one of the great things about football - the uncertainty of the weather and how that might impact the game.
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Indianapolis to announce bid for 2011 Super Bowl

                    Guys, we're gonna get it.
                    You look at all the other BIG sporting events we throw and the Super Bowl won't bring in as many people as the Indy 500, the Brickyard or even the F1 race. Not to mention, how many Final Fours have been here and the Big Ten Mens Tourney is now permanently here. Heck we even had NBA playoffs going on around the Indy 500. When's the last time Dallas hosted that many big sports events?
                    I talked to some Eagles fans at the dome this year and they couldn't say enough nice things about our city!! (I didn't know there were polite Eagles fans though.)
                    "I refuse to answer the question on the grounds I don't know the answer"--Zaphod Beeblebrox

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Indianapolis to announce bid for 2011 Super Bowl

                      Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                      While in Tucson this weekend, my colleagues had a great suggestion:

                      The winner of the Super Bowl should be host team for the next season's SuperBowl.

                      That way, (1) a team gets a "chance" to defend its SuperBowl championship at home (or, in my case, fumbles away that chance during the first eight games of the season )

                      And, it ensures that the game is played in bad weather occasionally, and that, IMO, is one of the great things about football - the uncertainty of the weather and how that might impact the game.
                      I'm having a hard time finding a problem with that solution. At least a problem that -I'd- have. I can think of a couple of issues the NFL would have tho.

                      The positive is it fits into the scenario that the NFL already has over other sports- Every game matters. You might be able to recover from a loss to still make the playoffs but that loss might be the loss that decides whether your playoff quest starts (or the conference championship is) at home or on some snowy field of an opposing enemy.

                      Other sports might end up having one loss decide their playoff fate but it might be months before you realize it and even then it isn't necessarilly any one particular loss you can point to. In the NFL, with 16 games, you know the loss(es) and their impact immediately. You can lose the ability to control your own destiny on opening day.

                      So go ahead and make the games mean even more... make them mean a potential SB for your city if you can put together a good championship season and then actually earn the right to defend that SB win at home the following season.

                      --

                      But would the NFL want to give up on the bidding process cities go thru now (and subsequent competition)? Would a 1 year lead time satisfy the NFL on knowing where a SB would be held and whatever prep and promotion they need to do? (I think they'd argue it isn't but I think they know it could be IF they wanted to make it work)

                      And can every NFL city handle a SB? Or would there be some minimum requirements in place and if your city couldn't handle the game would the winning team have the ability to choose where they want the next SB played (if it couldn't be at their place)?. IE: Maybe Green Bay wouldn't be allowed to host due to logistics but since they are the defending champion (in this scenario) they'd be allowed to pick from other cities who meet the requirements. So maybe Arizona, Chicago, Indy, and Cincy make pitches to GB and GB chooses Indy (with the roof open) as the home for the following SB.

                      But that gets you to another issue... Money...
                      In the above scenario Indy (the city and stadium) would be reaping the rewards of Green Bay's spoils. They could even find themselve's (Colts) playing at home in a Superbowl that they didn't even earn the rights to (altho that scenario is possible in the current SB selection process as well). So GB would be giving them a gift. But the money issue seems to be the biggest hurdle to me.

                      But then if cities can make pitches to GB for 'their' SB rights then maybe that fills GB's coffers enough to satisfy them.

                      Could the NFL only allow this type of situation to teams that don't meet minimum requirements though... or would that mean a city might prefer to accept some other city's money to buy the rights to 'their' SB? IE- Let's say Miami wins the SB so they have hosting rights for the next season (and obviously have the logistics covered). But instead of making plans to host it, they put the rights up for bid and see if anyone wants to give them enough $$$ to buy it away? Is that something the NFL wants to see happen? Couldn't that alienate fans and put the NFL in a bad light?

                      Those are off the top of my head. I'm sure the more I think about the idea the more unrealistic it seems.

                      -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