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

Interesting article about Attending NBA games (Pacers Mentioned)

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

  • #16
    Re: Interesting article about Attending NBA games (Pacers Mentioned)

    On the noise note, I'm going to be taking my entire family (6 people, counting myself) to the Wizards game in a few weeks as a Christmas gift. None of them have ever been to a Pacers game, so prior to the event I've already decided to warn them about the loud music during play along with the irritating timeout guys. I worry my family is going to be turned off from attending another game due to the headaches they're about to receive. My parents especially are not going to like it.
    Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Interesting article about Attending NBA games (Pacers Mentioned)

      I think attendance is down because the role models are down. Most of these players are punks. Over paid, under-skilled, punks. I see little kids sticking their hands out, to get a high five from any athlete that will give it, and most-all don't have the common courtesy to extend a hand to an 8 year old. Honestly there isn't probably 2-3 NBA players that I could point and say "If you're going to model yourself after a NBA player take a look at him." When it comes down to the NBA I'm solely a "team" guy, meaning I just like teams not really players. About 10-15 years ago I could name about 30 guys that I truly like, as a basketball player and role model. I'd rather see a little less athletic player that is a good player and person. Then some high flying, ball hogging, in and out of jail, punk, that can't high-five 8 year olds and getting 17 million a year. I do realize most of the NBA players do good things, but I assure you, it's under their PR peoples advise. The NBA character is in judgement. In baseball you have good guys, in football you have good guys. Heck Peyton Manning, Brett Farve and even in the college ranks Tim Tebow I'd suggest a kid (if they were going to pick a role model)to pick one of them and I'm older then Tim Tebow.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Interesting article about Attending NBA games (Pacers Mentioned)

        Hilarious, in baseball and football you have good guys?!?

        I have no numbers, but it seems there are more NFL players in trouble with the law (and that includes some Indianapolis Colts) than the NBA. You talk about overpaid? Baseball players are paid more than NBA players due to a lack of salary cap. And when we are talking about the character of the MLB, which one of the three major sports leagues has a rampant steroids scandal? I know I am overgeneralizing, but come on.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Interesting article about Attending NBA games (Pacers Mentioned)

          "The situation for the National Basketball Association can be summed up thusly: ratings for Indiana Pacers games are up 43% on FSN Midwest, while attendance for the team is down 28%.

          Makes a lot of sense. I've had season tickets for over 20 years. I'm almost to the point of giving up my season tickets, they are just to damn expensive. I can watch the games at home now days. That was not an option several years ago, no home games were on TV period, if you wanted to see the game you had to be there.

          They are pricing normal people out of the picture. Most of the seats around me are owned by businesses and you never see the same people in the seats.



          Originally posted by obnoxiousmodesty View Post
          the irritating timeout guys
          My God, I hate the timeout guys and girls more than anything at the games, the music doesn't bother me, I like it most of the time. The timeout girls voices sound like finger nails on a chalkboard.
          "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Interesting article about Attending NBA games (Pacers Mentioned)

            Originally posted by BoomBaby31 View Post
            I think attendance is down because the role models are down. Most of these players are punks. Over paid, under-skilled, punks. I see little kids sticking their hands out, to get a high five from any athlete that will give it, and most-all don't have the common courtesy to extend a hand to an 8 year old. Honestly there isn't probably 2-3 NBA players that I could point and say "If you're going to model yourself after a NBA player take a look at him." When it comes down to the NBA I'm solely a "team" guy, meaning I just like teams not really players. About 10-15 years ago I could name about 30 guys that I truly like, as a basketball player and role model. I'd rather see a little less athletic player that is a good player and person. Then some high flying, ball hogging, in and out of jail, punk, that can't high-five 8 year olds and getting 17 million a year. I do realize most of the NBA players do good things, but I assure you, it's under their PR peoples advise. The NBA character is in judgement. In baseball you have good guys, in football you have good guys. Heck Peyton Manning, Brett Farve and even in the college ranks Tim Tebow I'd suggest a kid (if they were going to pick a role model)to pick one of them and I'm older then Tim Tebow.
            I disagree with you 100%.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Interesting article about Attending NBA games (Pacers Mentioned)

              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
              I have a friend, pretty savvy guy, who said people are tired of watching a bunch of young punks shoot a zillion free throws as the climax of a boring game.
              Yeah, but RATINGS are up. So this POV doesn't wash. People want to watch, they just don't want to take the time, effort and money to do it in person.

              I think it's a sign that the team is bordering on a return. Fans have interest but don't trust the early results. By the end of the year attendance will have picked up, at least if this playing output continues.

              I do think they are spoiling the live experience by trying to hard. Let there be silence, fans will notice and some will even want to do something about it. Right now participation is being taken out of the mix because the arena is making all the noise, leaving no room for the fans to start to feel linked to the game itself. And if any arena should be giving you a classic live experience it's Conseco.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Interesting article about Attending NBA games (Pacers Mentioned)

                Really, the only incentive to attend a game in person vs. watch it from the comfort of your home is because you're going to have an "experience" in person. This includes things like pre-game autographs, but also includes any visceral thing that wouldn't be included in the at-home version. The marketing guys realize this, which is why they added in all the craziness, for lack of a better term. They're trying to create an experience.

                I feel the problem is they're going about it all wrong. I remember the first time I went to MSA as a kid. The arena looked run-down, the team sucked, but I will always remember walking into the aisle for the first time and seeing the court lit up really bright with the rest of the arena in complete darkness and thinking, "something special happens there". All it took was one great win over Boston in the playoffs, and I was hooked for life. I think the marketing teams should focus on making the experience "special" instead of "entertaining". After all, I can do a lot better for $100 bucks a head than an annoying chick screaming at me, a DJ, and a guy who spins lots of plates at the same time. I'd much rather watch the game on TV, then go spend the $100 at a night club, several museum trips, or a video game I've got my eye on.

                I guess, to sum it up, what I'm saying from an economics standpoint is that the arenas need to offer an experience that has no substitute good, or they need to make their prices competitive with the aforementioned substitute goods.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Interesting article about Attending NBA games (Pacers Mentioned)

                  Originally posted by BoomBaby31 View Post
                  I'd rather see a little less athletic player that is a good player and person. Then some high flying, ball hogging, in and out of jail, punk, that can't high-five 8 year olds and getting 17 million a year.
                  Not me!

                  ...and by the way when I saw the Pacers play the Nuggets a couple years ago, IN DENVER, Sjax gave his armband to a 5 year old girl next to me, and Ron left the stadium giving fives. Aren't those supposed to be two of the biggest thugs in the game?
                  "Think about it. At best, Ming develops into a bigger, more athletic Rik Smits." -Bill Simmons

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Interesting article about Attending NBA games (Pacers Mentioned)

                    Originally posted by BoomBaby31 View Post
                    I think attendance is down because the role models are down. Most of these players are punks. Over paid, under-skilled, punks. I see little kids sticking their hands out, to get a high five from any athlete that will give it, and most-all don't have the common courtesy to extend a hand to an 8 year old. Honestly there isn't probably 2-3 NBA players that I could point and say "If you're going to model yourself after a NBA player take a look at him." When it comes down to the NBA I'm solely a "team" guy, meaning I just like teams not really players. About 10-15 years ago I could name about 30 guys that I truly like, as a basketball player and role model. I'd rather see a little less athletic player that is a good player and person. Then some high flying, ball hogging, in and out of jail, punk, that can't high-five 8 year olds and getting 17 million a year. I do realize most of the NBA players do good things, but I assure you, it's under their PR peoples advise. The NBA character is in judgement. In baseball you have good guys, in football you have good guys. Heck Peyton Manning, Brett Farve and even in the college ranks Tim Tebow I'd suggest a kid (if they were going to pick a role model)to pick one of them and I'm older then Tim Tebow.
                    Yeah, I disagree 100% with this also!
                    ...Still "flying casual"
                    @roaminggnome74

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Interesting article about Attending NBA games (Pacers Mentioned)

                      Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                      Really, the only incentive to attend a game in person vs. watch it from the comfort of your home is because you're going to have an "experience" in person. This includes things like pre-game autographs, but also includes any visceral thing that wouldn't be included in the at-home version. The marketing guys realize this, which is why they added in all the craziness, for lack of a better term. They're trying to create an experience.

                      I disagree with your premise. When I see a game in person vs just on TV, I learn, so much more about the team, I get a feel for how the game is going - somehting I don't believe you can possibly pickup on TV. You get a ,much better idea of the quickness of a player, size, strength, speed. I truly believe after a game I see in person I know at least 50% more about both teams and about how the game went, vs just watching it on TV.

                      On TV you have no idea why Lebron James is so difficult to stop, but in person you get a good idea, in person you realize how quick Iverson is, and my favorite over the years was seeing John Stockton in person - you cannot possibly appreciate him by just watching on TV. His passing angles, his total control was a marvel to see in person.

                      I have gone to hundereds of games in my life and have never had any interest in getting autographs, or being close to the players, or any of that (sure I enjoy it when the crowd is in the game and it is fun to be there with 18,000 people who are all pulling for the same thing) but I enjoy the stuff you can only learn by being there in person. Why do you think teams send advance scouts to the game - why not save time and money and just watch it on TV, why do you think talent scouts go to the game - you just get a much better feel for things in person

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Interesting article about Attending NBA games (Pacers Mentioned)

                        "The situation for the National Basketball Association can be summed up thusly: Unclebuck loves it just the way it is, and almost everyone else doesn't.


                        Originally posted by eindar
                        I guess, to sum it up, what I'm saying from an economics standpoint is that the arenas need to offer an experience that has no substitute good, or they need to make their prices competitive with the aforementioned substitute goods.
                        This is what I've been trying to suggest.

                        Everything anyone has suggested about the noise and bother of the arena experience, plus the Pacers' off-court issues and their record over the past couple of seasons contributes to the decline, and so does the recent proliferation of amusement alternatives.

                        It is, as eindar suggests, an economic shift. For all the reasons given, people (in the aggregate) want less of the NBA than they used to. They've got more money than every to spend on amusement, but they are choosing less often to spend it inside NBA arenas.
                        Last edited by Putnam; 12-11-2007, 08:53 AM.
                        And I won't be here to see the day
                        It all dries up and blows away
                        I'd hang around just to see
                        But they never had much use for me
                        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Interesting article about Attending NBA games (Pacers Mentioned)

                          Here's an idea - set aside a section (not just a few seats) courtside and hold a "lottery" from all upper bowl seats that have people who entered the arena (I'm pretty sure those bar codes have the seat number) by 20 minutes before the game. Winners get to move down into that section.

                          Or even a frequent-attendee points program with upgrades available.

                          Biggest advantage is that you have a chance of getting an actual noisy crowd near the court rather than just corporate clients.
                          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


                          • #28
                            Re: Interesting article about Attending NBA games (Pacers Mentioned)

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            Here's an idea - set aside a section (not just a few seats) courtside and hold a "lottery" from all upper bowl seats that have people who entered the arena (I'm pretty sure those bar codes have the seat number) by 20 minutes before the game. Winners get to move down into that section.

                            Or even a frequent-attendee points program with upgrades available.

                            Biggest advantage is that you have a chance of getting an actual noisy crowd near the court rather than just corporate clients.
                            Now that is a great idea. (although it might cost the team a few dollars)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Interesting article about Attending NBA games (Pacers Mentioned)

                              the wizards kinda do something like that. but it is a fan-cam kinda thing. they make people sitting in the upper bowl right before the game jump up and down if they want a seat upgrade. the camera pans and zooms in on the "craziest" two people and then ushers come and relocate them to their upgrade.
                              This is the darkest timeline.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Interesting article about Attending NBA games (Pacers Mentioned)

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                Now that is a great idea. (although it might cost the team a few dollars)
                                More than they are losing now? I wonder how well Legends has sold in fact.


                                I like both ideas. Frequent flier promotes attending games even more. Imagine attending 15-20 upper deck games and getting one upgrade to the lower level for a game, or the right to buy better seats for one game at half price at least. Something like that.


                                I disagree with your premise. When I see a game in person vs just on TV, I learn, so much more about the team, I get a feel for how the game is going - somehting I don't believe you can possibly pickup on TV. You get a ,much better idea of the quickness of a player, size, strength, speed. I truly believe after a game I see in person I know at least 50% more about both teams and about how the game went, vs just watching it on TV.
                                Totally agree. And last year when I was blowing Rat crap about his seat vs lower seats the point was similar, jokes aside. The closer you get the more the game changes, the more the speed, size and even minimal spacing start to show up. But even an upper level seat shows you a game that you just aren't seeing on TV for these same reasons.
                                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-11-2007, 01:06 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X