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

Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

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

  • #31
    Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

    Bye, bye Indy Star from a long-time reader. I can accept moving to pay for on-line access, but like others here, I find $12/month utterly exorbitant. Maybe roughly half that fee would be justified.
    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

    -Emiliano Zapata

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

      Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post

      May not be all that related, but this is what happens, when people feel like they shouldn't have to pay for something. You don't give something for free, and then all the sudden decide to charge for it. I'm sure they make a good amount from all the advertising on their site. Banners ads are not exactly cheap.

      Now, $5/mo...that's possible. $12...that's a quick no.
      Thats exactly what I proposed to the Editor last month. I told them they need to offer a $6-$8 per month digital only subscription. Even if they needed a one year commitment to get that price discount, that would be acceptable. His retort was that at $12 a month its less than a cup of coffee per day. Good lord. Sucks because I actually enjoy logging on to the star every morning when I get into the office. You will get like so many free viewings a month before the pay wall stops you. Thus the continued use of Ads.

      The fact is they have a large printing facility on the northwest side, and most likely the $12 digital rate is subsidizing that operation. Cause they can't justify letting it go.

      I don't mind paying for content if the content is good, but for $12 that **** better be NY Times good, and I just don't think The Star is capable of that level of service and content.
      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

        Originally posted by blanket View Post
        For comparison, my city paper has limited content on their website, but offers mobile app access to their full print edition (including ability to search, bookmark, print articles/coupons etc.) for $1/month.

        $12/month is outrageous.
        Not knowing where you are from, I have to ask this. What is your local paper, and do you have any idea of their circulation?

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

          Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
          His retort was that at $12 a month its less than a cup of coffee per day.
          I don't know why every person who works for a newspaper decided that this is a valid defense. It's less than a cup of coffee because you put ads all over the paper and website and you're making money from my eyes looking at those ads. My basic cable TV costs about a dollar a day, because they play ten minutes of ads every half hour. This is no different, so please stop acting like you're not making money from advertising.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

            There will be absolutley NOTHING the Star will offer for that $12 that isn't available for free from other outlets. Do you want Pacers and Colts coverage? You find better writers on THIS board. Do you want local news coverage? The websites of the local news stations have you covered. Restaurant reviews? Urbanspoon is your friend. Entertainment and Nightlife? NUVO has everything you'd ever need for that.

            When you compare to similar products, The Wall Street Journal is $4.99 per week and is ten times better. The New York Times is only $3 more per month and you are likely to find MORE coverage for your local teams in it than you are the Star. They need to stop using that "less than a cup of coffee" line. My retort to that is that I expect to ENJOY my coffee.

            Oh well, just like any other business trotting out a dying business model in a changed world, they are about to find out just how valuable their product is.

            Gnome, I'm sorry to hear that your livelihood is tied to the Star. You might want to start looking. Even though your involved with the print edition, I'd have to believe that they are trying to charge the outrageous $12 for digital in an effort to prop up the print side of the business. I could be wrong about that, but if it were me I wouldn't feel comfortable.
            Last edited by travmil; 08-15-2012, 08:59 AM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

              Originally posted by HC View Post
              I barely read it free as it is now, no chance in hell I pay for it.
              Yep. Other than reading Wells' articles, I typically don't read it at all. So I guess this hurts if it means I can't see his stuff anymore, but then again odds are someone with access is likely to share it on a forum anyway.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

                Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                Wow, really? I hate to say it but it feels like the Star's days are numbered. At least a lot of staff members days anyway. It's a bummer what the internet's done to the hard journalism industry. Blogs are great, and there's a number that do really good investigative journalism, but it feels like we're heading towards a news world that's nothing but opinion based. I don't read papers for the editorials and opinion pieces, I read them for actual reporting.
                Ultimately I think written professional journalism is going to live or die based on how effectively they can integrate sponsors and advertisements directly into their content in ways that can't be easily ignored/filtered.

                Maybe that's putting a sponsor into their title (like how sports arenas do), and it's definitely putting ads in their articles through methods that don't allow for simple adblocking. Maybe that means linking to PDF files for content instead of script-generated webpages, maybe it's using something like flash to display the article/ads together, probably that means making their content only accessible via an app on mobile devices and tablets instead of the web browsers. Things like that.

                I still think there's a place for professional reporters, but things will have to evolve.

                I think in the next 10 years or so they need to just stop printing it on paper as another generation passes away that would never adopt digital. Just make it all electronic to streamline things.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  Thank you for making us part of your life. We will continue to work hard to earn your trust and your business.
                  Contact Karen Crotchfelt, president and publisher
                  Top ten unfortunate names for a woman there.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

                    Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                    I love their mobile app.

                    At least they have a good one. The AJC certainly can't say that.

                    But I'm not paying $12. Goodbye mobile app.
                    I wonder if they'd get more money by releasing a new app every year (branded the 2012, 2013 edition and so on) for a lump sum fee to download it (like maybe $30-50). Not many would do it, but at least that way it's cheaper than $12/mo and you only have to pay once and get everything on the app for the year.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

                      Am sorry to see Indystar headed this way. Will hold off on deleting it from my favorites list
                      or getting rid of the mobile app (for now), but do not see subscribing any time soon.
                      Last edited by RamBo_Lamar; 08-15-2012, 12:49 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

                        The Star was dead when the Pulliam's sold.

                        You're talking about Gannett here, and when we're talking about Gannett, my loyalties get thrown out the window.

                        http://www.nuvo.net/NewsBlog/archive...gracia-martore

                        An open letter to Gannett CEO Gracia Martore:

                        You probably don't remember me; I was one of 62 employees who were laid off at The Indianapolis Star last June. Of course, 700 other employees across the country also were let go around the same time, so I forgive you for not being able to put a face to a name.

                        I wish I could say I was shocked when I heard you had asked many of the remaining employees to take yet another one-week unpaid furlough less than two months after your predecessor, Craig Dubow, walked away with a $37 million retirement package. But then again, this is Gannett we're talking about.

                        It's not like Craig didn't deserve that money, just like he deserved the more than $16 million he made in salary and bonuses the previous two years, as thousands of employees were let go or forced to take unpaid time off; he did some special things during his tenure as Gannett's fearless leader. Look at the stock price, which went from about $10 a share to more than $75. Oh, wait a second, that's backward — Gannett stock actually dropped by $65 a share. Just the same, not many CEOs can say they managed to do that.

                        I felt for Craig as he left the company. Physical ailments are tough, just ask the pressroom guys or the reporters who can't afford their health insurance premiums after you cut Star newsroom employees' salaries by 10 percent a few years ago. I don't think the cause of his back pain was ever made public, but I'm guessing it had something to do with that enormous golden parachute weighing him down and not the crushing guilt that he was raking in so much cash at the expense of hard-working employees across the company.

                        I apologize for any glaring mistakes; it's 3 a.m. as I write this and like any good journalist, I'm nothing without a great copy editor. Of course, the current reporters are going to be finding that out soon enough, after you outsource the copy desk jobs to a hub in Kentucky. But why stop there? Why not ship the jobs to India or China or somewhere they don't even speak English at all? After all, it's not like a copy editor based in Louisville is going to automatically catch when, let's say, Pennsylvania Street is mistakenly referred to as Pennsylvania Avenue. That might embarrass the old guard — Pennsylvania is the street the Star is located on, in case you're wondering — but I don't think you or the rest of the executive crew at Gannett's headquarters in McLean, Va., are capable of shame.

                        I'm proud of the decade I spent working at the Star. I was never going to win a Pulitzer, but I was dedicated, hard-working and genuinely loved my job ... mostly. I used to tell friends and co-workers I loved being a Star reporter, but hated working for Gannett. Everyone knew what I was talking about. You've taken a once-respected, but still extremely profitable, newspaper and wrung every last cent you can from its withered husk.

                        The media landscape is constantly changing, but you and the others at Gannett HQ seem content to remain on a sinking ship, looting the fine silver and tossing random crewmembers overboard. I would consider you and the rest of Gannett's leadership (term used loosely and with a bit of a smirk) common whores, setting aside any concept of morality and ethics for money, but that's an affront to prostitutes everywhere. At least when one of their clients gets screwed, he's walking away with a smile on his face. Parasite might be more appropriate, as company executives continue to suck workers dry.

                        But it's no longer my problem. I've moved on — bitter, late-night screeds not withstanding — to new challenges, with my head held high. I don't think you or Craig can say that.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

                          Nobody is going to pay that. I only read the star for local sports coverage. IU, Pacers, Colts and what not. But I just go without, the coverage isn't that important. Insidethehall and Hoosierscoop can fill the gap on any real news anyway for IU. And SI and the other major sites will have enough of the Colts and Pacers

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

                            Originally posted by mattie View Post
                            The Star was dead when the Pulliam's sold.

                            You're talking about Gannett here, and when we're talking about Gannett, my loyalties get thrown out the window.
                            First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

                              Originally posted by Ransom View Post
                              My first thought was Netflix is 7.99 for unlimited streaming movies a month, I can't imagine wanting to pay 12 dollars to see Star articles that still have ads.
                              Netflix is also streaming old content that already made its money either through airing on TV a year earlier or movies that were released in theaters a year earlier. That is old content where everything they make off of allowing Netflix to stream it is just icing on the cake.

                              The Star is creating original content that hasn't already made the rounds. It isn't a fair comparison at all. If you look at any provider who is providing new original content it is going to start around $12 a month.

                              If you look at the Star's monthly subscription it is about $20. Really very little of that is actually going towards the physical medium, most of it goes to the business men and women and the content creators.

                              The truth is they probably can't go cheaper than $12 and stay in business as they are. It is much easier to charge less when you are only a service, and not the content creators like Netflix.



                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              Ultimately I think written professional journalism is going to live or die based on how effectively they can integrate sponsors and advertisements directly into their content in ways that can't be easily ignored/filtered.

                              Maybe that's putting a sponsor into their title (like how sports arenas do), and it's definitely putting ads in their articles through methods that don't allow for simple adblocking. Maybe that means linking to PDF files for content instead of script-generated webpages, maybe it's using something like flash to display the article/ads together, probably that means making their content only accessible via an app on mobile devices and tablets instead of the web browsers. Things like that.

                              I still think there's a place for professional reporters, but things will have to evolve.

                              I think in the next 10 years or so they need to just stop printing it on paper as another generation passes away that would never adopt digital. Just make it all electronic to streamline things.
                              Actually I find that highly unlikely, and in fact I find from my own personal experience, this is not scientific at all, that the majority of people who use AdBlocking software are over the age of 40. The younger generation just doesn't care and ignores the adds, or realizes those adds are there for a reason and actually welcome them if it means they get the content for free.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

                                I just couldn't justify paying $12 a month, when you can pretty much find the information elsewhere if you have time to look around a bit.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X