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

The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

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

  • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
    People will watch a Rams game on ABC. They won't watch a Pacers game on ABC. It's not bad marketing, it's market economics. If people watched Pacers games then they'd put them on ten times a year.

    Plenty of people watch the Heat-Pacers on national TV. It's pretty much a proven fact that it's a good draw.

    No one is saying that Pacers-Raptors should be on ABC. What we're saying is that Pacers-Heat (the NBA's marquee champion) would be a very good ratings hit on ABC.

    Comment


    • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

      ABC obviously disagrees.

      They aren't interested in good regular season games, or even regular season basketball in general (outside of Christmas which is a pretty big draw). They're showing these games because they're contractually obligated to.

      ABC wants New York, Chicago, Miami, LA and Kevin Durant on as much as possible. If they could fill their required quota by showing the Knicks and heat practicing on an off-day, they'd do that over two smaller markets playing an actual game. That's just economics.

      The pacers will probably still squeeze out a game or two next season, because they're a legit contender and George is a near-superstar. ABC will show that game kicking and screaming though, just like they probably did when the spurs were forced on them this season.
      Last edited by Kstat; 12-25-2013, 12:21 PM.

      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


      • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        Plenty of people watch the Heat-Pacers on national TV. It's pretty much a proven fact that it's a good draw.

        No one is saying that Pacers-Raptors should be on ABC. What we're saying is that Pacers-Heat (the NBA's marquee champion) would be a very good ratings hit on ABC.
        Next season I'm sure they will show it. But this year, going off last season's playoff ratings they obviously didn't wanna jump too soon on the Pacers. They may have missed the boat by a year but I doubt it's keeping them up at night.

        Comment


        • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          ABC obviously disagrees.
          There's nothing to agree/disagree over. Heat-Pacers just set a ratings record on NBA TV. Heat-Pacers Game 7 last year was TNT's third highest rated program ever. This is a matter of fact, not a matter of agreement. Whether one chooses to look at the objective evidence is another issue.

          If you're two time defending champion with one of the most famous players ever can't get ratings against a team that took them to Game 7 of the ECF's, then you have a complete failure of a product. But I don't believe that to be the case. The evidence says that Heat-Pacers is a huge ratings hit. The NBA and ABC just ignore it when making the schedules. ABC has say, but they don't set the schedules. The NBA makes the schedules and has the final say. A league like the NBA doesn't just sign away its TV rights without having substantial say in who plays in the nationally televised games. These games have a huge say in how its product is perceived. They don't just sit back and let ABC schedule whoever they want.

          If something like Pacers-Knicks couldn't get big ratings on ABC after last year's playoff series, then the NBA really has failed big time. I don't believe that to be the case though. I think that game would get plenty of ratings. Pacers-Bulls with the Chicago market and recent history between the teams? That would get ratings too.

          Comment


          • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

            You're more than welcome to write a letter of complaint to the American Broadcasting Company explaining to them how wrong they are.

            And yes, this is an ABC decision, not an NBA decision. You don't see the same lopsided scheduling with ESPN or TNT. It doesn't help the NBA to cram only 5 teams into one entire major network broadcasting schedule. It's just a cheap ratings ploy by the network.

            If the nba had a say, the Warriors would not have been left off. TNT and ESPN are obsessed with them, and for good reason.

            You care way too much about this.
            Last edited by Kstat; 12-25-2013, 12:30 PM.

            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


            • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

              ABC doesn't have any interest in forecasting what will work, they only care about what did work. Network TV executives are insanely risk averse, it's the reason there are 4 different versions of CSI, NCIS and Law and Order. They looked at the markets and the ratings for last year and decided what they thought would get them the highest ratings. They were wrong, and I'm sure they don't care.

              Comment


              • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                If you want the Pacers on National TV (and to be honest, I couldn't give two farts that they arent playing on Christmas Day, in fact I would prefer that they NOT; let the players, employees and arena workers enjoy a day off for crying out loud), then hope to god that someone with more interest in the product gets it in the next round of broadcast rights contract negotiation instead of Disney (or hope that Adam Silver is a fan of the old NBA on NBC double/triple/quadruple header setup).
                "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                Comment


                • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                  Taj Gibson is always impressive when I get the chance to watch him. Definitely one of the more underrated players in the NBA.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                    Originally posted by righteouscool View Post
                    Taj Gibson is always impressive when I get the chance to watch him. Definitely one of the more underrated players in the NBA.
                    Yeah, I agree. I've always thought Gibson was a solid player. Good defensively, solid offensively--really, about as good of a third big as any in the league. Hell, I think he's better than the Booz Cruz.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                      Originally posted by cdash View Post
                      Yeah, I agree. I've always thought Gibson was a solid player. Good defensively, solid offensively--really, about as good of a third big as any in the league. Hell, I think he's better than the Booz Cruz.
                      Expanding on this a little...I hate the Bulls. I hate their fans, and Lord knows I would never root for them to win a title...but you have to feel for their fans. Two years ago you had Derrick Rose in his prime at a MVP level, home court throughout the playoffs, a big man rotation of Noah, Boozer, Gibson, and Asik. Solid top to bottom, great defensive team. That injury to Rose really killed them. Now they are in purgatory. It would be like us securing the #1 seed this year and (Heaven forbid) Paul George blows an ACL in the first round.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        You're more than welcome to write a letter of complaint to the American Broadcasting Company explaining to them how wrong they are.
                        I am sure that there's all ready been some harsh internal memos shared among ABC execs about who made these bad scheduling decisions and how.

                        You are right in that it is all about economics, and economics is all about ratings, and the ratings for televised Pacers games so far have been so outstanding that one can conclude that most NBA fans are, relatively, very interested in watching them play and feel that they are underexposed.

                        I'd guess that the ratings for Nets and Knicks games will be abysmal.

                        As to whether we care too much or not, personally I don't care much at all. I will watch every Pacers game I can. I am a diehard. The only mildly annoying part is that there are a lot of people who don't pay attention to the NBA on a regular basis this early in the season, that don't commit the standings to memory, that don't get league pass, that now and then watch the national TV "marquee matchups" and those people are unaware that Indiana is having an exceptional season. Seems a shame. Based on the ratings, it also seems like stupid planning / marketing. I am sure that lots of ABC bigwigs will think the same if today's ratings are horrid. Do they then care way too much?
                        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                        Comment


                        • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                          I am sure that there's all ready been some harsh internal memos shared among ABC execs about who made these bad scheduling decisions and how.

                          You are right in that it is all about economics, and economics is all about ratings, and the ratings for televised Pacers games so far have been so outstanding that one can conclude that most NBA fans are, relatively, very interested in watching them play and feel that they are underexposed.

                          I'd guess that the ratings for Nets and Knicks games will be abysmal.

                          As to whether we care too much or not, personally I don't care much at all. I will watch every Pacers game I can. I am a diehard. The only mildly annoying part is that there are a lot of people who don't pay attention to the NBA on a regular basis this early in the season, that don't commit the standings to memory, that don't get league pass, that now and then watch the national TV "marquee matchups" and those people are unaware that Indiana is having an exceptional season. Seems a shame. Based on the ratings, it also seems like stupid planning / marketing. I am sure that lots of ABC bigwigs will think the same if today's ratings are horrid. Do they then care way too much?
                          They will fire the people responsible, then hire new people that will make the exact same decision next season.

                          Welcome to broadcast TV. King Tut's comment bout broadcast execs being risk-averse is spot-on. Sponsors like certainty, and by extension so do the networks. CBS is the blandest most conservative network out there and they dominate the other networks like Jordan's Bulls.

                          The ABC exec's logic is this: even if the bulls and lakers have a worse year than expected, Chicago and LA aren't going to get any smaller. But if Indiana has a surprisingly terrible season, there's nothing to fall back on.

                          The pacers need to be a mortal lock contender (like the spurs and thunder) before ABC puts them on tv.
                          Last edited by Kstat; 12-25-2013, 02:54 PM.

                          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


                          • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                            I take it back. Watching the nets getting booed off of their own floor on Christmas Day makes this game worth it. That was awesome.
                            Last edited by Kstat; 12-25-2013, 02:54 PM.

                            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


                            • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                              to the games... my God how can I watch these horrid Nets.

                              I turned the remote control over to my teenaged daughters who begged to watch the Kardashians marathon. That is some awful TV, but I can't argue that it's a big step down from watching the Nyets lose by 25 at home, with no effort, to another awful team.

                              I had been about to turn to the Man-vs-Food marathon anyway.

                              I can always go to one of my other TVs, but why? Crap basketball is not entertaining. Jason Terry's sock are interesting, but that is about it.
                              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 12-25-2013, 02:58 PM.
                              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                              Comment


                              • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                                It is when it's so bad that it becomes comedy. The nets fall into that category.

                                When mike dunleavy and DJ Augustin are clowning people, that is must see tv. I want to see how bad this train wreck gets.
                                Last edited by Kstat; 12-25-2013, 03:02 PM.

                                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

                                Working...
                                X