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

IBJ: A "real" sports town wouldn't abandon the Pacers

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

  • Re: IBJ: A "real" sports town wouldn't abandon the Pacers

    Sports are great and serve to bind us together but there is soo much more to life.
    There are so many other things we can do and people even in a boring state like Indiana
    find other ways to spend their money. And if ultimately the Pacers or Colts decide to leave
    town because Indy is not a great sports town, so be it. I will miss them but I will be just as
    happy the next day. Benner's column was just a stir the pot column worthy of the best
    Kravitz churns out.
    {o,o}
    |)__)
    -"-"-

    Comment


    • Re: IBJ: A "real" sports town wouldn't abandon the Pacers

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      I know everyone is going to blast him for daring to expect fans to support the team, but there is a MASSIVE KEY here...

      2003 Manning, Harrison, Dungy and Edge called, they wanted to talk about some blacked out games issues.
      1991 called, it wants that joke back.

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

      And that, friends, is why I never, ever want to here it in support of the fanbase. They already choked, many times over. They couldn't fill it up to watch Reggie till AFTER a couple of ECF runs, they couldn't keep 5000 Titans fans out of a HOME PLAYOFF GAME, again featuring Manning.

      The fact that they would bail on a losing Pacers team isn't surprising in the least. Is it worse because of incidents, sure, but don't kid yourself into thinking that if it was Reggie, Dale and Jax out there winning 30 that you wouldn't have empty seats....because it's already happened. It's not theory, it's history.
      Indianapolis is no different than any other fan base in the country.

      Did you notice Philly was just a couple spots above the Pacers on the attendance? And Philly has a reputation for being such a hard-core fan base. Not to mention the Philly metropolitan area is one of the largest in the country.

      Indy has supported the Pacers and Colts just fine in recent years.

      I know you harp on the fact that the Titans fans were able to come up and get tickets for the playoff game 9 years ago. Indy fans scalp their tickets, that's just a reality we have to live with. But it sure does happen a lot of other places as well. Look at this article that talks about how Steelers, yes Steelers, playoff tickets were easy to come by. And I thought Pittsburgh was one of the greatest fan bases in the country?

      http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08006/847178-66.stm

      Tickets were available for a Pittsburgh Steelers playoff game up to an hour before the game! The Steelers *are* Pittsburgh, yet they apparently had trouble selling that game out. So it's not that hard to believe that the Colts would have trouble selling out a game 9 years ago, when the Colts were still viewed as not really being Indy's own.

      Let's look at some facts that prove that Indy has been pretty good about supporting the Colts in recent years.

      In 2002 the Colts averaged 56,669 fans, filling the Dome to an average 94% capacity. That year they were coming off of a disastrous 2001 season in which they failed to even make the postseason, so they weren't exactly at the height of their popularity. Let's compare that to the Pittsbugh Steelers, Oakland Raiders, and Detroit Lions, 3 "hardened" fanbases with so-called diehard fans.

      In 02, the Steelers averaged 61,284 fans filling to 94.3% capacity, the Lions averaged 61,217 fans filling to 94.2% capacity, and the Raiders averaged 60,636 fans filling to a 96.2 perecent capcity.

      http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attendance?year=2002

      Hmmm......

      Looks like Indy is right in line with those "hardcore" fanbases. They all filled their stadiums to mid 90's percent capacity. Looks like Indy was right with those hardened fanbases, despite the fact that the Colts were coming off of an awful year and the fact that the Colts were still viewed as being "foreign" in the eyes of many locals.

      Explain to me how Indy is such a fickle fanbase again? Doesn't look that way to me based on the attendnace figures.

      Now, let's compare the Colts attendance in 2007, a year in which they came off of a superbowl, to 2002, the year in which they were coming off of a 6-10 record.

      In 2007, we averaged 57,304 fans, filling to a 95% capacity. Comparing that to the 02 season, it looks like we gained an average of 635 fans a game. Wow. Doesn't seem like a fickle fanbase to me. I mean, 5 straight division titles and all we gain is 635 fans a game? That's roughly a 1 percent or so gain. The Colts also filled the Dome to a higher capacity in 07 than Da Bears did, despite the fact that Chicago has millions and millions of more people than Indy does.

      http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attendance?year=2007

      Look at that and look at the capacities that many of those teams fill up to. Indy is right there with Chicago, Oakland, Miami, Dallas and Pittsburgh. All of those are supposedly diehard fan bases, yet Indy fills the dome to roughly the same capacity as those teams.

      The Dome has a listed capacity of 57,980. The Indianapolis 9 county region has a population of 1,984,644. So the Dome represents 2.9% of the Indianapolis extended metropolitan population. If Chicago, for example, had a stadium that represented 2.9% of it's population then that stadium would have to seat 275,666(Chicago metro is 9,505,747)! Think that Chitown could fill that up every weekend? I don't think so!

      Soldier Field seats 61,500. The dome seats 57,980. So Soldier Field is about 5% bigger than the Dome. Yet Chicago is oh, about 79% larger than Indianapolis. Not exactly a fair comparison is it?

      Doesn't seem to me that Indy is that bad of a fanbase after all when it comes to the Colts. Indianapolis over the past many seasons has comparable attendance that is right up there with the most classic franchises in the league. And that is with a tiny metro area and an "imposter" team. And what's so bad about having to build a fanbase up? Rome wasn't built in a day. It has taken years for teams like Pitt and Dallas to build up diehard fanbases. Hopefully our superbowl title will be the foundation to a great fanbase.

      You said that it took a couple of ECF runs before people showed up to watch the Pacers. According to my Pacer media guide, it just really took 1....

      In 94-95 we had 24 sellouts and averaged 15,976 fans (MSA capacity 16530, thats 96% capacity) ....

      The same anaylisis can be used with the Pacers. A Knick fan in a chat once bragged to me about how great the Knicks attendance was and was trashing the Pacers. It irritated me because the Knicks have millions and millions of more people to pull from than the Pacers do. There could be less demand for Knicks tickets and you just wouldn't know it because they still have enough demanded to routinely sell out the place. I don't feel like I need to bore you with the same math again, but I think you get the idea that for the Knicks to have a stadium that represented the same % of pop as the Pacers, it would be well into the 100's of thousands(173,290). I doubt that would sell out 41 times a year.....

      It is impossible to compare Indy with places like NY and Chicago on an even keel. Indianapolis has relatively the same sized stadiums yet has millions and millions of less people to pull from. I'm not happy about the Pacers low attendance, because the attendance has certainly been there before, I'm just saying that Indianapolis is one of the smallest markets in professional sports and that must be accounted for when judging the attendance.
      Last edited by Sollozzo; 03-13-2008, 05:14 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: IBJ: A "real" sports town wouldn't abandon the Pacers

        Adam, my hat is off to you. I have been beating that same horse for years. If Indy had the population base of NY then any evaluation would be relevant. But to say we aren't supporting because we draw a few thousand less than they do is ludicrous.

        It is one time I can agree with statisticians.
        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

        Comment


        • Re: IBJ: A "real" sports town wouldn't abandon the Pacers

          Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
          Adam, my hat is off to you. I have been beating that same horse for years. If Indy had the population base of NY then any evaluation would be relevant. But to say we aren't supporting because we draw a few thousand less than they do is ludicrous.

          It is one time I can agree with statisticians.
          I couldn't agree more. I have been upset about attendance before, but then I realized that it wasn't fair to compare the Pacers to the rest of the league because of population inconsistencies. We can only compare the current Pacer attendance to past Pacer attendance. Indy obviously isn't supporting the team like it used to, but I think that it's just a natural cycle that most sports teams go through.

          I mean, even the fabled Boston Celtics have struggled with attendance in recent years, and they play in the 11th largest metropolitan area in the United States! They also have 16 championships and are without a doubt one of the 2 most classic franchises in the league.

          To add to my point a tad more...

          In 04-05 for example, the Pacers averaged *more* fans than the Celtics did! And the TD Bankworth Garden seats *more* than Conseco does. It seats 18,624, compared to 18,345 of Conseco

          04-05 attendance for the Pacers: A total of 696,764 and average of 16,994
          04-05 attendance for the Celtics: A total of 656,081 and average of 16,001

          91.9% capacity for the Pacers, 81.6% capacity for Boston

          http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/attendance?year=2005

          Yes, in that year the Pacers averaged *more* fans than the Celtics despite having a slightly smaller stadium and playing in a metro area with 2 million less people. Not to mention the fact that the Celtics are considered to be one of the most classic franchises in sports with their 16 titles, while the Pacers don't even have 1 NBA title.

          So does Boston have a lousy, fickle fanbase as well?
          Last edited by Sollozzo; 03-14-2008, 03:45 AM.

          Comment


          • Re: IBJ: A "real" sports town wouldn't abandon the Pacers

            Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
            I couldn't agree more. I have been upset about attendance before, but then I realized that it wasn't fair to compare the Pacers to the rest of the league because of population inconsistencies. We can only compare the current Pacer attendance to past Pacer attendance. Indy obviously isn't supporting the team like it used to, but I think that it's just a natural cycle that most sports teams go through.

            I mean, even the fabled Boston Celtics have struggled with attendance in recent years, and they play in the 11th largest metropolitan area in the United States! They also have 16 championships and are without a doubt one of the 2 most classic franchises in the league.

            To add to my point a tad more...

            In 04-05 for example, the Pacers averaged *more* fans than the Celtics did! And the TD Bankworth Garden seats *more* than Conseco does. It seats 18,624, compared to 18,345

            04-05 attendance for the Pacers: A total of 696,764 and average of 16,994
            04-05 attendance for the Celtics: A total of 656,081 and average of 16,001

            91.9% capacity for the Pacers, 81.6% capacity for Boston

            http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/attendance?year=2005

            Yes, in that year the Pacers averaged *more* fans than the Celtics despite having a slightly smaller stadium and playing in a metro area with 2 million less people. Not to mention the fact that the Celtics are considered to be one of the most classic franchises in sports with their 16 titles, while the Pacers don't even have 1 NBA title.

            So does Boston have a lousy, fickle fanbase as well?

            Compared to when Bird et al were there...dern straight!

            Hmmm?? can Bird's impact be equated with Reggie's?

            Can their leaving be equated?
            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

            Comment


            • Re: IBJ: A "real" sports town wouldn't abandon the Pacers

              Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
              Compared to when Bird et al were there...dern straight!

              Hmmm?? can Bird's impact be equated with Reggie's?

              Can their leaving be equated?

              Probably.

              Their post Bird years were kind of like our post-Reggie years have been. I'm sure they just wore tired of the Celtics, much as the fanbase here has worn tired of the team

              Comment

              Working...
              X