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

SI: Why fans are tuning out and why fans should tune in again

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

  • SI: Why fans are tuning out and why fans should tune in again

    http://premium.si.cnn.com/pr/subs/si...221/index.html

    Why Fans Are Tuning Out the NBA

    Until teams can control or unload players who behave badly, the league will suffer in the public's eyes

    By Ian Thomsen


    The NBA has lost touch with the red states, commissioner David Stern told team executives during a meeting last month. Stern realizes that people in the heartland view today's players as overpaid and out of control; the brawl between the Pacers and fans in Detroit on Nov. 19 only validated those feelings. That's why many team executives are urging Stern to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement (to take effect next season) in which the guaranteed contracts have lower maximum salaries and are limited to three or four years instead of six or seven. Teams want to be able to rid themselves of problem players more quickly, as a way not only to reestablish discipline but also to show fans that irresponsible behavior won't be tolerated.

    "We need to be able to manage our own business," says one team executive, who criticizes the NBA's leadership for allowing shoe companies and other merchandisers to "hijack" the image of the league. True, the NBA has profited from this ancillary business, grossing $3 billion from sales of league merchandise worldwide last year, but it has created a mixed message. Many of the young people who buy jerseys and sneakers embrace Latrell Sprewell, who despite choking his coach in 1997 received a five-year, $62.8 million contract from the Knicks, then griped in October that the Timberwolves' offer of a three-year, $21 million extension wouldn't be enough, saying, "I've got a family to feed." Yet such outbursts alienate the middle-aged breadwinners and corporate executives who buy most of the expensive seats. And make no mistake: Ticket sales still account for the majority of NBA revenue.

    Another stark example of how bad behavior can be bad for business is the Trail Blazers. In the happier 1980s and '90s Portland played to full houses, serving as a model for all that was right in the NBA's bullish world. But this season, through Sunday, the Blazers had sold slightly more than 10,000 tickets per game at the 19,980-seat Rose Garden, ranking them ahead of only the Hawks and Nets in paid attendance, a category that most owners consider more important than wins and losses.

    What's turning off the faithful? A litany of suspensions, arrests and convictions by various Blazers. Take an ugly Jan. 28 argument during a film session between 23-year- old forward Darius Miles and popular coach Maurice Cheeks, after which management suspended Miles for a paltry two games. ("I might as well pack my bags," Cheeks would later say.) A proposed side deal, leaked to The Oregonian, revealed that the team was negotiating to reimburse Miles his $150,000 in missed salary if he displayed good citizenship for the rest of the season by not arguing with the coach and by making a better effort during private workouts. These side agreements are common practice in the NBA because long-term guaranteed contracts -- like the six-year, $48 million deal Miles signed last summer -- leave teams with little leverage. Salary-cap restrictions make Miles virtually untradeable; Portland's only hope is to encourage him to act better.

    Like many executives, Blazers president Steve Patterson and G.M. John Nash are complicit in this sense of player entitlement. On the one hand they're pleading with Stern to negotiate financial reform; on the other, they re-signed Miles, forward Zach Randolph and center Theo Ratliff to overpriced, long-term deals since last summer, ensuring that Portland will be unable to immediately exploit any reforms. Owners are as responsible as anyone for turning the NBA into a profligate league: There are 57 players making $8 million or more this season, and at week's end 25 of them failed to rank among the top 50 in points, rebounds or assists.

    Football teams are rife with discipline problems too, but their fans love that a malcontent like Jeff Garcia can be dumped because NFL contracts are rarely guaranteed. Much of the NFL's popularity is drawn from its simple value structure of authority and discipline. The NBA is a much more complicated reality show, a bruising ballet addressing many of the hot-button issues that divide our nation culturally -- race, immigration, personal responsibility and pursuit of the almighty buck. Only when the players and coach blend fluidly and bond selflessly, this year in places like San Antonio, Phoenix, Miami, Detroit and Seattle, are fans rewarded with inspiring theater.

    Why Fans Should Tune In Again

    The NBA is providing more end-to-end action and scintillating star power than it has in many years

    By Jack McCallum


    For much of the sports-watching population, the following assertion will inspire outrage, scorn and an avalanche of dissenting letters. But here it is: At the midpoint of the 2004-05 season the NBA appears to be well on its way to rehabilitating its product on the court and its image off it.

    For a few crazy moments let's assume that an entire sport should not be defined by a single Friday night fight (as ghastly as the Malice at the Palace was) and that the NBA will not commit labor suicide this summer when the collective bargaining agreement expires (as its ice-skating counterpart has done). Let's take a look at all that's going right.

    • Style points. After years of subscribing to the belief that 100 is, like 666, a figure to be avoided, teams have discovered that piling up points can yield stunning results -- that a winner can be built around the fast break, rapid ball movement and, in the case of the resurgent Suns and Sonics, three-point shooting. At week's end seven teams were averaging triple figures, five more teams than last season. Part of that increase comes from the foul line; referees have been told to cut down on physical play. But in most arenas on most nights the game just looks better -- more fluid, more graceful -- than it has in two decades.

    Even Larry Brown, whose Pistons won last season with stingy defense and a sharp half-court offense, believes these quick-trigger offenses are more than a passing fancy. "The only way it's not going to work in the playoffs is if they don't make shots," says Brown. "Then, we'll all be geniuses defensively."

    • Basketball's Patriots. If you're a running team, the Spurs will shut down your break. If you play deliberately, they'll push the tempo. If you don't like it rough, they'll body up on you. If you do like it rough, they'll play rougher.

    Though they are defined by the peerless efficiency of Tim Duncan, San Antonio is far from boring. It has two of the league's most exciting players in swingman Manu Ginobili and point guard Tony Parker, both of whom have tempered freelance tendencies to work within coach Gregg Popovich's controlled offense. Yet like New England's adaptable Super Bowl champs, the Spurs seem just vulnerable enough to make a title less than a foregone conclusion, with eight of their 12 losses through Sunday coming by six or fewer points. The feeling in the West is that San Antonio's the team to beat, but it can be beaten.

    • Stars out of rehab. No, not that rehab -- injury rehab and image rehab. One hesitates to mention Magic forward Grant Hill's recovery from left ankle surgeries, for fear it will jinx him. "It's like Ali [losing his boxing license] for three years of his prime and then coming back," says Celtics coach Doc Rivers. That's a bit strong, but if there's one player everyone can root for, it's Hill.

    And if there is one athlete whom almost everyone wants to bury, it's Allen Iverson. Line him up against anyone -- steroid-abusing Jason Giambi, cocaine convict Jamal Lewis, headhunting Todd Bertuzzi -- and many would rank the 6-foot Iverson public enemy No. 1. Yet no player in any sport competes harder and through more pain. After back-to- back 50-point games in December against the Bucks and the Jazz, Iverson laid 60 points on Orlando last Saturday night. And during an up-and-down 76ers season, he's been a model teammate.

    • Young guns. Enough yammering about players entering the NBA too early. Youth movements have overtaken golf, tennis, figure skating and, for that matter, the business world. People: The ship has sailed. Live with it.

    And what youth hath wrought is not merely LeBron James. The Bulls, irrelevant since Michael Jordan's last retirement, have risen in the East behind rookies Luol Deng, 19, and Ben Gordon, 21, whose spirited play has rejuvenated a couple of creaky 22-year- olds, Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler. "No team plays harder than the Bulls," says Rockets coach Jeff Van Gundy. "Anybody who doesn't think they can be a huge factor in the playoffs isn't watching the games."

  • #2
    Re: SI: Why fans are tuning out and why fans should tune in again

    This is soooo much better than that Ventre article someone recently posted and I agree totally with both assessments

    Comment

    Working...
    X