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

Why is NBC making the same mistake again?

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

  • #91
    Re: Why is NBC making the same mistake again?

    I don't get the move to NYC either. Hollywood has treated the Tonight Show very well for many years. I get that a lot of stars have places in NYC and that there has been an increase in things filmed in NYC over the years, but still, it's no Hollywood.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Why is NBC making the same mistake again?

      Originally posted by RWB View Post
      And this is where Fallon is going to take a hit. Seems like a big mistake moving the show to New York. I have to believe part of Leno leading the pack was his access to many celebrities all the time.
      I just saw an interview the other night and they were basically saying NY has regained its stature and Hollywood is dwindling. They were also saying that when the TS moved to "Beautiful Downtown Burbank" there were fears about leaving the bustling metropolis of NY. But Hollywood was on an upswing. So maybe the tables have turned again... I think the main argument was the cost of production in LA has grown too high.

      I think Letterman has gotten too political (or allowed his own personal political leanings to become too obvious). His most cutting barbs swing one way and many times aren't all that funny. Just mean spirited. And he goes out of his way to make those jokes/remarks. If there's a softball lobbed for him, take a swing... But don't go reaching and especially don't go reaching if you're not going to do that same type of thing for both sides of the aisle.

      I liked Conan's Late Night even though I found him awkward many times. I'm not sure what happened with his Tonight Show but I just found it lame the first few times I sampled it. It just didn't interest me. I thought it was almost unwatchable. And I'm no huge Leno fan so I gave Conan a chance. I can take Leno or leave him. I thought Letterman should've had the TS gig the first time around and all would've been right in the late night talk show realm. That all said, Conan's last shows, when the fit had hit the shan, I thought were some of his best. Whatever he had going then he needed to bottle.
      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

      ------

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

      -John Wooden

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Why is NBC making the same mistake again?

        I watched Letterman last night.........man, what happened to this guy? His monologue used to be pretty funny, but that was just terrible. Now I know why I watched far more of Leno in recent years.

        Bball, I think you're onto something about New York. Over the last 5-10 years, it really seems like New York has made major headway as far as film production is concerned. Agree about Conan's Tonight Show too. It was absolutely awful and failed for that reason and that reason alone. The viewers fled months before Leno's 10 PM show premiered in September. Leno can be blamed for not having a strong enough 10 PM show to save Conan, but he cannot be blamed for viewers leaving in the first place, which happened long before Leno came on with his new show. This key fact has been distorted many many times.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Why is NBC making the same mistake again?

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          I watched Letterman last night.........man, what happened to this guy? His monologue used to be pretty funny, but that was just terrible. Now I know why I watched far more of Leno in recent years.
          .
          He has been mailing it in for years. I read those "War for Late Night" books a few years back and the impression I got was that Letterman is the smartest, funniest, and most naturally talented of the bunch (that was before the new guard of Kimmel, Fallon, etc. burst onto the scene) but he simply doesn't work hard on the show. Leno, on the other hand, busted his *** for his show and was almost manic in his preparation for shows.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Why is NBC making the same mistake again?

            He's pretty campy, but does any one ever watch "The Graham Norton Show" on BBC? That show can be funny (once you get past the small monologue in the beginning). I really like the format (getting all the guest out at the same time).

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Why is NBC making the same mistake again?

              Fallon is better at skits than hosting.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Why is NBC making the same mistake again?

                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                He has been mailing it in for years. I read those "War for Late Night" books a few years back and the impression I got was that Letterman is the smartest, funniest, and most naturally talented of the bunch (that was before the new guard of Kimmel, Fallon, etc. burst onto the scene) but he simply doesn't work hard on the show. Leno, on the other hand, busted his *** for his show and was almost manic in his preparation for shows.
                Truth be known, I think Letterman was probably more hurt by not getting the Tonight Show than we'll ever know. He idolized Carson. He was Carson's pick to follow him and the heir apparent due to what NBC did to keep Letterman in the fold and to have him waiting in the wings. Then it all went wrong.

                I'm sure for a while the "I'll show them!" attitude prevailed to fuel his career and the Late Show at CBS, but now I think he's just settled in and accepted that his career doesn't and won't have the crowning jewel of the Tonight Show and while he might've damaged it a bit, overall the Tonight Show is still the prize amongst his peers and the up and comers in that group. The question of who will host the Late Show when Dave retires is either looked at as a consolation prize at best, or a show that won't even really exist when he retires.

                I don't think the true story of what was accomplished with the Late Show will ever be written until it's over and Dave rides off into the sunset. Maybe even after he's gone from this earth. There never really was a viable competitor to the Tonight Show's supremacy until Dave came along. Kimmel probably doesn't even exist on ABC without the Late Show being able to actually exist comfortably and show the Tonight Show doesn't just overwhelm and overshadow all of that type of entertainment any longer (which was conventional wisdom after failed attempt after failed attempt came along). Even the followup shows like Craig Ferguson, Conan, and Fallon exist mainly because of the success that Dave had with Late Night with David Letterman on NBC.

                I think it really is a shame he didn't end up at the Tonight Show. And I think he probably is just mailing it in these days because he's that good that he can, and because the passion just isn't there like it once was with career goals 1 and 2 no longer attainable. He's never going to host the Tonight Show, and his show, as successful as it is and historically, is never going to supplant the Tonight Show.
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

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

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Why is NBC making the same mistake again?

                  Ya know, I've been watching Letterman since he first got Late Night, 31 years ago. Longer than some of you have been alive. For a long time I had never missed an episode (20 years?). At some point he stopped being must see tv for me.

                  These days I watch John Stewart, the second half of Conan, the second half of Letterman, and then all of Craig Ferguson.

                  Here's some trivia you may not know. On Carson's show he used to have occasional guest hosts. Letterman, Leno and Joan Rivers were in the rotation, among others. Then Letterman got Late Night. Soon after Joan Rivers was named the permanent guest host on The Tonight Show. She left as permanent guest host when she got her own late night talk show on Fox. They went back to rotating guest hosts until Leno was eventually named permanent guest host.

                  So if Joan Rivers hadn't jumped to Fox, she may have been first in line to take over from Johnny. Her or Letterman.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Why is NBC making the same mistake again?

                    Back in the day it was never thought the 'permanent guest host' would take over as host of the Tonight Show. Letterman had it sewn up was what the thought was in the industry. NBC signed Letterman to a contract to the network just to have him in the fold after several successful stints as a guest host on the Tonight Show. Then they tried to find vehicles for him while he was under contract waiting for the Tonight Show to open up. That's why there was such a shock and backlash when Leno was announced as the new host of the Tonight Show.

                    So, I'd be curious to know if Joan jumped at the chance to host her own show because she thought there was zero percent chance she would ever be host of the Tonight Show (when the 'obvious' heir apparent was David Letterman)? The money they were offering, the chance to have her own show, and how long she assumed Johnny would continue could all be factors. But I have to wonder if she realized there was even a chance the next permanent host wasn't already decided if she ever would've jumped ship when she did. She was then effectively banned from Johnny's Tonight Show after that. And if I'm not mistaken, Leno continued the ban. Strangely enough, even with his loyalties to Johnny, Letterman has had Joan on his show.
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

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

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • Re: Why is NBC making the same mistake again?

                      Originally posted by Merz View Post
                      He's pretty campy, but does any one ever watch "The Graham Norton Show" on BBC? That show can be funny (once you get past the small monologue in the beginning). I really like the format (getting all the guest out at the same time).
                      I catch it every so often depending on the guests. I like him but not enough to watch every week. I think a lot of what makes the show solid is that it's only weekly and they're able to get some pretty insane guest panels at times.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Why is NBC making the same mistake again?

                        So I guess Fred Armisen is going to lead Seth Meyers's band on his Fallon replacement. That sounds pretty awful. That's the antipathy of chemistry.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Why is NBC making the same mistake again?

                          Every time i see the title of the thread i think it is about the Olympic coverage even though I know the topic.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Why is NBC making the same mistake again?

                            How was Fallon's show?
                            Last edited by Sollozzo; 02-18-2014, 09:51 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Why is NBC making the same mistake again?

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              How was Fallon's show?
                              I forgot to watch or record it... Was sick last night so bed was early.
                              I've seen exactly one FB review though and it was very positive.
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

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

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


                              • Re: Why is NBC making the same mistake again?

                                THought the debut was really good. I watched most of it, but fell asleep toward the end. Didn't get to see U2 second performance.

                                I think Fallon will be great. He has a certain gravitas about him and he comes off as a loveable goof ball. Where as Conan always came off a bit pretentious to me, even if he was funny.

                                Fallon does great at skits, so even if the guest line up sucks he can make great skits. He also always did great audience participation bits, hope he is able to keep it up.
                                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X