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

Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

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

  • #61
    Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    Can't someone scan it in
    Who wants to go through that trouble? More power to whoever does it, though.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

      Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
      Who wants to go through that trouble? More power to whoever does it, though.

      Voting is coming up for PD Most Valuable Poster, Duke. The guy who would "go through that trouble" would get a lot of votes.
      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


      • #63
        Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

        Originally posted by Putnam View Post
        Voting is coming up for PD Most Valuable Poster, Duke. The guy who would "go through that trouble" would get a lot of votes.
        I'm taking the hint that you think I should bite on that for this reason? I don't even subscribe to the Star anymore let alone want to mess with my scanner.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

          With the looming lockout on the horizon, I expect the NBA teams to receive a sweetheart deal. Stern has already said that the 57% share will go down, probably not the 43% he's seeking but likely at least to the 50% threshold. Stern is also looking at capping players salaries at a max of 13 million. I expect it will be 15 million. The Pacers will be in a much better financial condition after the lockout.

          http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slu...bortalks020610
          "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
          Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

            Originally posted by IUGRAD View Post

            I haven't read all of this post

            but everyone does realize that if the pacers move the CIB will be responsible for operating costs of Conseco fieldhouse right? IF the pacers leave that means the CIB must generate 41 events to replace the 41 home games. Either way the bottle shakes the CIB is going to have to pay for the stadium, so why not pay for it with 41 guaranteed events a year with the Pacers. I just feel everyone has jumped ship and is riding the Colts right now..but I try to remind everyone that there is NO GUARANTEE that the Colts wont be average again once Manning retires and if the Pacers leave and we are an average Colts team again fans will leave and revenue for the city will be greatly impacted. I know it seems selfish of the PACERS to request this but it is fair as well. Our city of Indianapolis has built up the city along with the Pacers/Colts help no need to ruin something so magical as what the city has now. I say pay the operating costs and reap the benefit of all involved. But what do I know



            After you read this thread, where do you propose the City of Indianapolis come up with the 15 mil the CIB doesn't have? How is the City of Indianapolis suppose to generate the 15 mil? If City doesn't have the money, how do you expect them to pay it? They aren't like the Federal Gov't that can just print some money when the need arises with the promise the US Gov't backs up the money. Someone is going to have to pay for what Herb Simon wants to not have to pay. I'm not planning on being one of them. I got stuck against my wishes with the Colts. I have no desire to do it again. Burnt once twice shy, been there done that, thanks but no thanks.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
              The development of downtown Indianapolis includes several aspects:
              • 3 new sports venues
              • several new hotels and dozens of restaurants
              • Circle Center and other retail
              • whopping expansion of commercial and office space
              • bloated state bureaucracy
              • several new parking structures (to serve daily commuters)
              • theater and concert venues
              • growth of IUPUI into a major campus


              The Pacers and Colts are the reason for the first bullet and a contributing factor to the second. But they are immaterial to the other types of development, which sum up to far more than the sports teams can account for.

              The sports teams have made a positive contribution to the downtown culture, I admit that happily. But you can't just say, "Look at downtown!" and conclude that the sports teams did all that.
              My argument would be that as you admit that they were the first thing going on to spur the development, do you really want it to be the start of a negative trend?

              I mean it would be a historic media frenzy if we allow them to leave. Just a lot of bad press, and the last thing you want is to start a negative trend of this magnitude. It also would hurt the potential of additional revenue a winning Pacers could bring. What happens if Lucas Oil Ever sits empty? It's nice to have a 41 game and playoffs tax revenue coming in. They should just put an additional ticket tax for all events held at Conseco if they have to.

              The Pacers are the whole reason Conseco ever became a reality. I would have to say Conseco is a good thing for downtown Indy.

              Indianapolis isn't Seattle or LA. It can't afford to loose an NBA or an NFL franchise.

              On the other hand, Simon is one of the richest men in the world and he can afford it. He better only sell the team to someone who wants to keep it here if he can't make a profit with it. I mean it seems if the CIB gives in on the 15 million, the Pacers should have to pay like a 5 million of it. So that way the Pacers only have to make 10 million in profit next year to break even, and so does the CIB. The Pacers could easily recoup 10 million by being that much under the salary in 2011. The CIB could recoup the money by applying a "sin tax" on all tickets sold downtown. You want to attend the Colts game? Well here is 3 dollar charge on your ticket.

              With the sweet deal the Colts got, the CIB should have to add a sin tax to the tickets sold downtown to cover its expenses at Conseco while giving the Pacers a viable deal.

              Really what are the options? Pay 10 mil, and make the Pacers pay 5 for a lease? Or pay 15 and lose all the revenue the Pacers bring along with it? I mean the net loss in real numbers would be much higher any way you slice it. The city's hand are tied here.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                After you read this thread, where do you propose the City of Indianapolis come up with the 15 mil the CIB doesn't have? How is the City of Indianapolis suppose to generate the 15 mil? If City doesn't have the money, how do you expect them to pay it? They aren't like the Federal Gov't that can just print some money when the need arises with the promise the US Gov't backs up the money. Someone is going to have to pay for what Herb Simon wants to not have to pay. I'm not planning on being one of them. I got stuck against my wishes with the Colts. I have no desire to do it again. Burnt once twice shy, been there done that, thanks but no thanks.
                Supposing you live in Indianapolis or the surrounding counties, where is it you plan to move so you can be far enough away from the tax implications this will cause? Most likely has to be 2 counties away from Indy if the donut counties get involved, and with State getting involved in this, it will most likely drag the donut counties into paying for his. So where you gonna move to? I hear Anderson is a great place to live....LOL!
                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                  My parents subscribe to the Star (that's how I read the article), but I called and they went to Recycling today so their copy's gone.
                  Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    I think the Pacers pushing back on the labor agreement will do exactly nothing. As long as it doesn't hurt New York, LA, or any Hype Player, the NBA really doesn't care.

                    I think Stern would be just as happy to drop the NBA to half the teams. As long as there are 2 in NYC, 2 in LA, and one each in Boston, Toronto ("international", you see), Chicago, Dallas, Miami, and Mouseville ... er ... Orlando, there could be a few more scattered as cannon fodder across the US.
                    I know Stern is smarter than that. If your scenario happens there are going to be a whole lot of players out there looking for something to do. Time to start the ABA again.
                    {o,o}
                    |)__)
                    -"-"-

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                      I really dont' see how the players have any leverage what so ever. There are so many players living pay check to pay check (imagine that) and so many players who dream it is to play in the league, they would never think of destroying their chances so Lebron and company can make 20 million for 7 years guaranteed. heck after a year they could just hold a new draft could they not?
                      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                        Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                        The sports teams have made a positive contribution to the downtown culture, I admit that happily. But you can't just say, "Look at downtown!" and conclude that the sports teams did all that.
                        Downtown in its current state would not exist if not for Indiana Sports Corp. Sports were the driving force behind the revitalization of downtown in the 1980's, there's no other way to look at it.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                          Stop referencing the "sweetheart deal" the Colts negotiated. That is an independent and situation that is not related to the facts at hand. This negotiation is between the CIB and the Pacers; not the Colts, CIB, and Pacers...

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                            Kravitz's Sunday Editorial
                            Pacers' mess is their problem, not ours



                            There's never a good time for a multimilion-dollar business to beg the public for a heaping slice of corporate welfare. But consider now the timing of Your Indiana Pacers, who, while continuing to plead poverty for most of the past three decades, have finally come out and said; If you don't help us by the end of June, we're going to ook at our options, including relocation.
                            Yes,Great timing.
                            Our pubic schools are a mess.
                            Unemployment is hitting double digits.
                            Our infrastructure is crumbling.
                            And these folks at the Pacers-people with six- and seven-figure salaries,all kinds of perks and the petty cash to pay the likes of do-little advisers Stedman Graham and Calvin Hill-are going to hold the city for ransom?
                            They have the gall to come to the CIB, aready cut to the bone by cutbacks in recent years, and insist on help in paying more than $15 million a year to run Conseco Fieldhouse?
                            Of course they do.
                            Because that's how teams operate.
                            Except here's the rub: After speaking with a haf-dozen people involved in this mess, I've concuded the city is inclined to tell the Pacers to shove it, to call their bluff.
                            (Cue hearty applause)
                            As things now stand, the CIB said it is willing to take over the operation of the building,but understandably has certain conditions is wants affixed:
                            First , CIB officials want control of the building, which would help them in myriad financial ways. Their dollar, their facility, right? But the Pacers, at least for now, won't move. They want control, want their own people running the place, and neither side has yet budged.
                            Last edited by owl; 04-19-2010, 07:50 PM.
                            {o,o}
                            |)__)
                            -"-"-

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                              Originally posted by owl View Post
                              I know Stern is smarter than that. If your scenario happens there are going to be a whole lot of players out there looking for something to do. Time to start the ABA again.
                              I don't think a consolidation of the nba market from 30 to fewer teams is a bad idea at all. If it is true that many small market teams are just not profitable then serially rotating nba teams through small markets is like the circus coming to your town but will be leaving soon- think Charlotte, OKc, Memphis, NJ, and Indy.

                              Stern is probably looking international and will put together a European conference that at some point in a post-season have superbowl type games with the nba conference. In other words broaden the appeal and compete only in markets that can sustain big revenues. Too many small market teams are sustained by the personal losses of owners who may write off the debt with other businesses. Now that Herb is the only owner he may not be too happy to absorb all the red ink previously shared by Mel.

                              Incidentally, the Star would be hurt badly if the pacers left town. Lots of people read the Star only for sports and if nothing is happening in Feb. readership will go down.
                              Last edited by speakout4; 04-19-2010, 07:57 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                                Kravitz cont...

                                Second, there's the issue of revenues. The CIB-again,understandaby-believes it's entitled to some or all of the non-Pacers related revenues that come from Conseco. The Pacers seem to beileve the CIB should pay the mortage on their house and they should enjoy all the equity that acrues. You cannot beg for help and dictate the terms of the bailout at the same time. Not the way it works. Fine, then. Move. Good luck. See how Seattle is coming on a replacement for key arena. Do a feasibility study on Kansas City, Missouri and tell me how you're going to make money in a small market that already has the Royals and the Chiefs. Line up all the prospective franchise buyers who want to be part of a league where almost everybody is bleeding money. Show me all the cities who would be willing to pay the fifty million dollars necessary to break the Conseco lease- although Pacers president Jim Morris has claimed in private meetings that a new owner could sever the lease without paying a significant penalty. Let me put this simply: If a basketball franchise in Indiana can't make it, especially in a jewel of a new building that is the envy of the league, that is a YOU problem, and not an US problem. If you lose money 28 of 30 years, including every year with near sell-outs at a new building through the early 2000s, that says everything about your business inefficiencies and ineptitude and nothing about the tax-payers.
                                {o,o}
                                |)__)
                                -"-"-

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X