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

2010 NBA Finals: Los Angeles vs. Boston - update: game #7 TV ratings best since 1998 (post #748)

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

  • #16
    Re: 2010 NBA Finals: Los Angeles vs. Boston

    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
    How is this any more compelling than 2008?

    You have the past 2 NBA champions playing. It's also the second time they are playing each other, so you can start the rivalry talk. You have Kobe going for his second straight ring and revenge against the team that beat him in the finals 2 years ago. If the Lakers win this series, you're talking about top 5 all time status for Kobe. And then you have the C's going for their second ring in 3 years. One of these teams is going to have multiple recent rings when this series is over, so you're going to have some mini-dynasty talk. These are better story lines than 08, IMO. I think it's always more compelling when teams are meeting in the finals for the second time.

    Was 08 the best rated finals since MJ retired?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: 2010 NBA Finals: Los Angeles vs. Boston

      Nope. the 2001 Sixers/Lakers finals, on the strength of that spectacular game 1 that made us all think it was going to be an actual series, was the highest rated post-Jordan finals.

      Technically, 2008 was only the 5th highest rated finals of the past decade.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: 2010 NBA Finals: Los Angeles vs. Boston

        I have a feeling this series ends in 5. I don't know who wins, but this whole playoffs has stunk so bad for exciting series, the finals won't be any different.

        but I'll go with the Lakers.
        Play Mafia!
        Twitter

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: 2010 NBA Finals: Los Angeles vs. Boston

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          Nope. the 2001 Sixers/Lakers finals, on the strength of that spectacular game 1 that made us all think it was going to be an actual series, was the highest rated post-Jordan finals.

          Technically, 2008 was only the 5th highest rated finals of the past decade.

          Interesting, though I guess I'm not totally surprised. In addition to the Sixers winning the first game in 01, you also had a TON of star power in that series, which is always what has fueled NBA ratings. AI was the MVP and was more popular than ever, and Shaq and Kobe were gunning for their second straight ring after sweeping the first 3 rounds of the playoffs.

          The more I think about it, this series has waaaaaaay more interesting story lines than 08. In 08 you essentially had 2 brand new teams, the big 3 Celtics and the Kobe/Gasol Lakers. All the hype going into that series was about reviving an old rivalry. There was 0 history to and between these teams. Now, there is recent history between them, a mini dynasty in the making for someone, and the potential for a player to achieve top 5 all time status. The only way it doesn't beat 08 is if it's a lopsided series from the get-go.
          Last edited by Sollozzo; 05-30-2010, 01:28 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: 2010 NBA Finals: Los Angeles vs. Boston

            Originally posted by Pig Nash View Post
            I have a feeling this series ends in 5. I don't know who wins, but this whole playoffs has stunk so bad for exciting series, the finals won't be any different.

            but I'll go with the Lakers.

            I think the fact that the playoffs have stunk so bad means that we're in now for a great finals. These are the 2 previous NBA champions playing each other, after all. Both of these teams have a tremendous amount of pride and want this second ring more than anything in the world. I'd be beyond shocked if one of them was able to beat the other in 5, but you never know I guess. I also thought we would have had far more great series than we've had so far.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: 2010 NBA Finals: Los Angeles vs. Boston

              So Artest will be playing for an NBA championship and JO is looking like he's closer to retiring than contributing to a championship team...

              Has Artest shaken the shackles of 'the brawl' off his image and game quicker/more thoroughly than the Pacers themselves?
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: 2010 NBA Finals: Los Angeles vs. Boston

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                So Artest will be playing for an NBA championship and JO is looking like he's closer to retiring than contributing to a championship team...

                Has Artest shaken the shackles of 'the brawl' off his image and game quicker/more thoroughly than the Pacers themselves?

                Yes. Artest will always be remembered for the brawl, but he will now also be remembered for hitting a shot that dictated the course of the Western Conference Finals for the Los Angeles Lakers of all teams. He followed that up with a spectacular game 6 and was a huge reason the team won tonight. That's some pretty big stuff. In the eyes of Los Angeles Laker fans, he will be far more remembered for that than the brawl, and they probably have more fans than anyone in the NBA.

                It's funny how much more "team" oriented Artest is when he's not playing with a team of fellow clowns. Then again, he knows he can't get away with anything in LA as Kobe and Phil would punt him to the curb if he pulled any silly stunts. They won the title without him last year, so he knows he needs them a bit more than they need him - though he's helping them out quite a bit right now. Here, Artest knew he could get away with anything under the sun as we were dependent on him to be a successful team on the basketball court. The Lakers could make do with Artest if they were forced to. We saw how our house of cards crumbled when he left.

                I'd say NBA life is pretty damn good for Ron Ron right now. JO meanwhile looks like he's 38 out there. If the Lakers win the title this year and Artest has big contributions in the Finals, then he'll be more remembered for his basketball than JO will. Being a valuable contributor on a Laker championship team guarantees that.

                It's funny, Artest doesn't irritate me at all right now. I was chuckling as he was draining those treys tonight.
                Last edited by Sollozzo; 05-30-2010, 01:57 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: 2010 NBA Finals: Los Angeles vs. Boston

                  I seriously don't know who to root for.

                  Rasheed Wallace or Ron Artest? Ugh.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: 2010 NBA Finals: Los Angeles vs. Boston

                    I have no problem rooting for Artest. Wallace on the other hand.... No thanks...
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: 2010 NBA Finals: Los Angeles vs. Boston

                      I don't actually think Pau played poorly in the 08 finals. He put up 15 / 10 / 3 on 53% shooting. Season averages that year were 19 / 8 / 3, 53% shooting. I think Pau actually gets a bit of a mean streak when you bump him around. I think the player who was effected most by Boston's withering defense was Kobe. He just didn't play well enough for the Lakers to win.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: 2010 NBA Finals: Los Angeles vs. Boston

                        I don't really understand the Artest hatred.

                        The guy is legitimately insane. How do you hold someone like that responsible for the crazy things they do? It's like hating a baby for crying, he can't help it, he's nuts.

                        Lakers in 6, and I'll be rooting for Ron Ron to show up big.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: 2010 NBA Finals: Los Angeles vs. Boston

                          Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
                          Will this be the highest rated finals since Jordan retired? I'm thinking so.
                          It might have to go 7 games to be the highest rated since Jordan. maybe 6 games might be enough if they are close and a buzz is creatd early on

                          Another key to series TV ratings is to have a very competitive and memorable game #1, get casual fans and media talking about the finals early on and that brings casual fans to the TV
                          Last edited by Unclebuck; 05-30-2010, 07:21 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: 2010 NBA Finals: Los Angeles vs. Boston

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            Nope. the 2001 Sixers/Lakers finals, on the strength of that spectacular game 1 that made us all think it was going to be an actual series, was the highest rated post-Jordan finals.

                            You are correct

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...ielsen_ratings

                            But game #1 was memorable and Iverson at that time was a huge star
                            Last edited by Unclebuck; 05-30-2010, 07:21 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: 2010 NBA Finals: Los Angeles vs. Boston

                              The Lakers hold serve to go up 2-0, take one out of three in Boston, then wrap it up at home. Lakers in 6.

                              I would prefer the Celtics to win because it's sickening that Ron Artest would get to win a title along with Kobe and Phil after how he left us in his wake.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: 2010 NBA Finals: Los Angeles vs. Boston

                                Lakers in 7
                                Avatar photo credit: Bahram Mark Sobhani - AP

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X