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

Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

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

  • #61
    Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    Because who ever they brought in had to guard Matthews, and OJ is a bigger body.
    Well, that makes sense. But for some push back, I don't care for those kinds of moves if they can be avoided. C.J. is proven in pressure situations and this was our biggest five minutes of the year. OJ was clearly rattled out there.

    I would prefer we put in C.J. and see how it goes. If Matthews immediately burns him, then, yes, put OJ in instead. But the guys with the game should at least be given a chance to perform.
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      No the league doesn't reward team quality they reward TV ratings.
      No kidding. If the NBA is more concerned with TV ratings, then they should go back to the early 60's where there were just 8 teams, then they can put the Knicks and whomever else they want on TV 50 times a season. We have Stern out and about bringing in franchises that can't support themselves, and move cities within a decade, but let's not worry about making the league stronger as a whole, let's just focus on TV ratings. Good idea.
      Last edited by Since86; 12-04-2013, 10:42 AM.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        I guess it goes back to the question who do you blame? The viewing public or the NBA/TV partners who don't put on the lesser known teams. (I don't think market size matters very much. If Lebron played in Muncie Indiana the Muncie Widcats would be on the maximum number of times)

        No the league doesn't reward team quality they reward TV ratings. Certain teams get better ratings than others even if they are comparably good. And yes I know Bills argument that if the pacers are never on TV then they wil never be known and will not get good ratings and therefore won't be on TV. I get that. But look at the Thunder. Very small market team (that right now is one of the best rating draws in the NBA) How did they become a top TV draw? Very slowly. Become good is the first step, get or build recognizable star players and slowly build.

        The veiwing public has to take some blame also. The average casual NBA viewer would rather watch the Clippers style of ball than the Pacers, Grizzlies, Spurs style. A lot of fans don't want to see David West or Duncan's fundamental style and would rather watch the Clippers' Griffin flying around dunking the ball.

        Pacers popularity is building with their great start and the buzz that is creating along with Paul George. But it takes time to build that and once built we'll be complaining about too many national TV games involving the Pacers. Pacers are a likeable team that will become a pretty good ratings draw, but it takes time.

        And no the NBA is not the NFL. Cannot compare the two. The NBA is more like MLB, but even that is hard to compare.

        How do we know that fans across the country wouldn't be interested in watching the Pacers? Have the Pacers been given the chance to prove themselves in front of an ABC audience like the Knicks get every season? No, they haven't. The Pacers are still a relatively new team and last year's playoffs was their true coming out party. 2011-12 was big, but the 2013 postseason saw us beat a hyped 54 win Knick team in front of a huge audience and then take the champion Heat to 7 games in the ECF's. We did this with a young budding star and had plenty of people talking. So how do we know that people wouldn't have been interested in watching Pacer games on ABC this season? There is no way that you can definitely make that statement when there is no quantitative evidence. The Pacers aren't even getting the chance to prove themselves one way or the other. You're saying that the league does what it does because it works, but the problem with your argument is that it never even tries alternatives. There's simply no way that you can definitively say that people wouldn't be interested in watching a couple of Pacer games on ABC.

        I'm not denying that franchises/markets like Chicago and New York are important to the league. My problem is that the ratios shouldn't be so laughably biased towards them. When the ABC games basically revolve around 5 franchises (a couple of whom aren't even very good teams), it's a problem.

        The NBA is not the NFL and will never have its popularity, but you can still make basic comparisons. They are both professional sports leagues at the top of the pyramid in their respective sports. The NFL does a good job of successfully marketing a wide variety of teams to the entire country. Why can that not be brought into the argument? While the NBA won't ever be the NFL, why can't one say that maybe there is a thing or two that the NBA could learn from the NFL to better its product?
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-04-2013, 11:24 AM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

          Look at the first round playoff ratings. Take away the NBATV games. Compare TNT, ESPN and ABC ratings. The Hawks vs Pacers ratings were awful, horrible. if i was an NBA or TV executive I would not have the pacers as a marque team after seeing the ratings. The firsr round of the playoffs is always a very good indicator of what teams draw ratings. There isn't time to advertise, there are a ton of games, all equally important

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            Look at the first round playoff ratings. Take away the NBATV games. Compare TNT, ESPN and ABC ratings. The Hawks vs Pacers ratings were awful, horrible. if i was an NBA or TV executive I would not have the pacers as a marque team after seeing the ratings. The firsr round of the playoffs is always a very good indicator of what teams draw ratings. There isn't time to advertise, there are a ton of games, all equally important
            You mean the ratings where the Heat/Pacers pulled more people than Heat/Bulls? Which is why Chicago got 5 ESPN/ABC games to the Pacers zero.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Look at the first round playoff ratings. Take away the NBATV games. Compare TNT, ESPN and ABC ratings. The Hawks vs Pacers ratings were awful, horrible. if i was an NBA or TV executive I would not have the pacers as a marque team after seeing the ratings. The firsr round of the playoffs is always a very good indicator of what teams draw ratings. There isn't time to advertise, there are a ton of games, all equally important
              Which was before the Pacers beat a 54 win hyped Knicks team in front of a national audience and then took Miami to Game 7 of the ECF's. Why shouldn't the Pacers have been given the opportunity to capitalize on that in at least one or two ABC games this year against a team like Miami or New York who you know would help bring in the ratings? I'm not saying they deserved five ABC games, but what is wrong with given them at least one?

              I'm not saying that they should schedule Pacers-Bucks on ABC, but what is wrong with putting a Pacers-Heat game on ABC? You don't think that will get ratings? My problem is that most of the ABC games are basically some combination of the same 5 teams (LAL, NY, Chi, OKC, Mia).

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                You mean the ratings where the Heat/Pacers pulled more people than Heat/Bulls? Which is why Chicago got 5 ESPN/ABC games to the Pacers zero.
                were those games in the same round? Each round the ratings go up, so it is best to compare within each round

                here is a link that lists every playoff game last season and the ratings each game received.

                Pacers vs hawks was the lowest rated first round series. (once again I am not counting any games on NBATV. Pacers vs hawks game #6 got only 644K on ESPN2.

                http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2013...or-every-game/
                Last edited by Unclebuck; 12-04-2013, 11:40 AM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                  With those ratings, I'll point out that the highest rated Bulls/Heat game was viewed by 6.6M people. The lowest Pacers/Heat game? 7M.

                  Not to mention that SAS isn't getting any national TV love, and they just happened to be the Heat's opponent for near record setting ratings. And this issue can be solved, without taking the Heat off of national TV. How about televising a Heat/Pacers game? Nah, we know the Pacers don't pull good ratings, regardless of who they play.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    were those games in the same round? Each round the ratings go up, so it is best to compare within each round

                    here is a link that lists every playoff game last season and the ratings each game received.

                    http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2013...or-every-game/
                    Oh, so ratings go up with the quality of basketball, not who's playing? Interesting.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      Which was before the Pacers beat a 54 win hyped Knicks team in front of a national audience and then took Miami to Game 7 of the ECF's. Why shouldn't the Pacers have been given the opportunity to capitalize on that in at least one or two ABC games this year against a team like Miami or New York who you know would help bring in the ratings? I'm not saying they deserved five ABC games, but what is wrong with given them at least one?

                      I'm not saying that they should schedule Pacers-Bucks on ABC, but what is wrong with putting a Pacers-Heat game on ABC? You don't think that will get ratings? My problem is that most of the ABC games are basically some combination of the same 5 teams (LAL, NY, Chi, OKC, Mia).
                      Nothing wrong with it, but if you look at it just on the numbers I can understand why we are not on ABC. Sure I would guess we were borderline, and I would be surprised if we don't have a game or two added later.

                      Pacers are on TNT a couple of times and that is also a showcase for the league on Thursday nights.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        Oh, so ratings go up with the quality of basketball, not who's playing? Interesting.

                        No, they primarily go up when the games are more important. Each round is more important, that is why there is more interest. Since you are trying to look at it in a vacuum, you know you cannot do that. There are probably a dozen different factors that go into why TV ratings are what they are.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          No, they primarily go up when the games are more important. Each round is more important, that is why there is more interest. Since you are trying to look at it in a vacuum, you know you cannot do that. There are probably a dozen different factors that go into why TV ratings are what they are.
                          You can use the word "important" while I stick with the word "quality."

                          And really? What other factors do the Knicks/Nets best the Pacers in, besides TV market size?
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            And really? What other factors do the Knicks/Nets best the Pacers in, besides TV market size?
                            remember the games were picked back in late July when the Nets and Knicks looked like they would be pretty good teams. Factors that go into TV ratings. In no order at all. Stars on the team. Quality of team. market size. Which round of playoffs. What game within the playoff series. (games 7's shoot up in ratings) Timeslot. Rivalry? Injuries. How close the actual game is. Recent controversy involving team or players - have they been in the news lately.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                              So which factors in that list do the Knicks and Nets best the Pacers in?

                              Not quality of team.
                              Not playoff round.
                              No recent controversies.

                              The only one that's applicable is TV market size. The Pacers even have the best player out of the 3 teams, and that argument was starting to go PG's way before the schedule was ever made.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                                We wonder why the NBA has had two lockouts in about a decade, because their smaller market teams can't stay financially stable, and we're arguing whether or not the NBA's marketing strategy is the best choice. If you go off of results, it's pretty hard to argue that this is the best the league can do. If it is, then the league needs to start cutting the dead weight.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X