Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

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

  • #16
    Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

    It should be fun to see the reaction when the city tells the people they are going to raise their taxes for the Pacers, but then try to hide the fact we cut school budgets. That should be fun to watch.

    I think covering the operating costs of Conseco would have been much easier to take had the tax payers not got screwed over in the deal for LOS. How in the world could the government give Irsay revenue for non Colts events, but yet not put in most of the investment?

    Seattle might get a team sooner then they thought. :shakehead

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      The city cannot afford to lose the Pacers and the decision should never come down what the current and temporary situation is with the team.


      "The city cannot afford to lose the Pacers" is an unfortunate turn of phrase. I join you in hoping the Pacers stay and the Ballard Administration can get some good advice from somewhere about how to manage this.

      But there is really nothing the city "can't afford to lose." It can lose Navistar. It can lose its Aaa bond rating. It can lose its best schools. It can go right on losing indefinitely.


      So, again, what does "the city can't afford to lose the Pacers" really mean?

      The best argument is that the city owns Conseco Fieldhouse and without an NBA tenant the Fieldhouse becomes even more of an albatross than it will be with one.
      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


      • #18
        Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

        im not even sure why the PAcers agreed to take on the Stadium costs to begin with.
        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

          Originally posted by DocHolliday View Post
          Downtown is electric whenever the Pacers play, isn't it? I'd prefer not to lose the Pacers, but let's not act like Indy hasn't grown enough (yes, thanks in part to the Pacers) to continue as a thriving city, even if the Pacers were to leave.
          Without professional sports, Indianapolis is basically Columbus, OH.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

            Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
            im not even sure why the PAcers agreed to take on the Stadium costs to begin with.

            It's because they envisioned a lot of Justin Bieber concerts and monster truck rallies that would increase their revenues. By operating the facility, the Pacers thought they'd be raking in money from those other events.
            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


            • #21
              Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

              All sports franchises have these potential "what if" thoughts and think about if the city wants their franchise there.

              Indianapolis has an advantage because of the history of basketball in Indiana.

              Times are tough for everyone and rebuilding takes some time.

              I don't see the franchise moving and mainly because the city won't allow it. I think they'll help out with a few of our financial problems.

              As a team, we need wins and playoffs to show fans that we've entered a new era and that the rebuilding has paid off.

              The fanbase is returning. We've had good crowds in the past month of success.
              Last edited by Trophy; 04-13-2010, 11:51 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

                Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                im not even sure why the PAcers agreed to take on the Stadium costs to begin with.
                Because they wanted to take the profit from non-basketball events. Which they did not have at Market Square.

                (Along with no concession revenue, no parking revenue, and other unfavorable terms at MSA. The Indiana Fieldhouse lease was supposed to "right some of those wrongs" but perhaps has other flaws being exposed now.)
                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


                • #23
                  Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

                  Originally posted by DocHolliday View Post
                  Downtown is electric whenever the Pacers play, isn't it? I'd prefer not to lose the Pacers, but let's not act like Indy hasn't grown enough (yes, thanks in part to the Pacers) to continue as a thriving city, even if the Pacers were to leave.
                  ask those businesses that depends on the Pacers and Conseco, ther whole se section of downtown depends on it, so ask those business owners, and their employees, if they want to keep their jobs. it has nothing to do with electricity (you brought that up, although it was pretty good 1994-2000

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

                    Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                    "

                    [bThe best argument is that the city owns Conseco Fieldhouse and without an NBA tenant the Fieldhouse becomes even more of an albatross than it will be with one[/b].
                    That is what I meant when I said the city cannot afford to lose the Pacers. it will still costs probably $15M per year to run Conseco

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

                      Originally posted by Trophy View Post
                      All sports franchises have these potential "what if" thoughts and think about if the city wants their franchise there.

                      Indianapolis has an advantage because of the history of basketball in Indiana.

                      Times are tough for everyone and rebuilding takes some time.

                      I don't see the franchise moving and mainly because the city won't allow it. I think they'll help out with a few of our financial problems.
                      I certainly hope you are right about that.

                      But, my fear is that in the end it always comes down to money, money controls just about everything, and in these negotiations you're going to hear the taxpayers and everyone ***** and moan that they will have to pay more possibly, even if it's for the best interest of the city of Indianapolis in the long run.

                      My level of worry: Elevated
                      Super Bowl XLI Champions
                      2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

                        The main problem is that the media contorted the real issue to make it sound like the tax payers have to bail out the Pacers and their millionaires. The city made sure of that as the Indystar plays by their game. They went with the jerk reaction to make news.

                        The reality of it is the Pacers have it in their deal that after 10 years they could renegotiate, and it sounds like the 15 million is something the city should have been paying for all along if it weren't for the Pacers wanting to give it a go to rake in the money, well it back fired and the Pacers want a more standard agreement it seems.
                        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

                          Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                          "The city cannot afford to lose the Pacers" is an unfortunate turn of phrase. I join you in hoping the Pacers stay and the Ballard Administration can get some good advice from somewhere about how to manage this.

                          But there is really nothing the city "can't afford to lose." It can lose Navistar. It can lose its Aaa bond rating. It can lose its best schools. It can go right on losing indefinitely.


                          So, again, what does "the city can't afford to lose the Pacers" really mean?

                          The best argument is that the city owns Conseco Fieldhouse and without an NBA tenant the Fieldhouse becomes even more of an albatross than it will be with one.
                          This is the best argument and lets face it the city makes money off the Pacers but they also make money off of concerts, rodeos, etc, etc.....

                          I just feel that the CIB deals come down to dirty under that table politics that really pi$$ me off as a tax payer. The guys who get shafted in all the so called good deals are the tax payers. I am speaking about the Colts.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

                            Ok i would like to say i love the pacers and dont want them to leave!

                            But as most people know all goverments are broke!!! So how would you feel if you were a teacher and lost your job to budget cut backs, the same city gave the national sports team money to operate?????
                            I CANT SPELL!

                            THERE ARE THOSE THAT HAVE AND THOSE THAT WILL!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

                              Originally posted by the jaddler View Post
                              Ok i would like to say i love the pacers and dont want them to leave!

                              But as most people know all goverments are broke!!! So how would you feel if you were a teacher and lost your job to budget cut backs, the same city gave the national sports team money to operate?????
                              But thats just it, its not giving the Team money to operate.
                              Some one will correct me if i'm wrong i'm sure. But Simon's don't want any money for the Pacers. Its the operating of the venue. Which if you look at LOS, the CIB runs and operates the Venue. Simon not even asking for the same sweet heart deal the city gave Irsay. They just want the CIB to pay for running a CIB asset.
                              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Pacers face uncertain future at Conseco Fieldhouse

                                Originally posted by the jaddler View Post
                                Ok i would like to say i love the pacers and dont want them to leave!

                                But as most people know all goverments are broke!!! So how would you feel if you were a teacher and lost your job to budget cut backs, the same city gave the national sports team money to operate?????
                                Not great, but the teacher is 1 job, the team bring in hundreds/ thousands of jobs.

                                Teachers/ Police/ Firefighters.... all under-appreciated & under paid, but kids do not go untaught because of sports teams, they go untaught by special interest/ greed/ big-goverment/ wastefull spending....
                                "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                                (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X