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

LORD HELP OUR PACERS

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

  • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    No one is saying attendance won't be down.

    I'm saying (I won't speak for anyone else) that the attendance drop for a team playing hard and losing is less (and less permanent) than the attendance drop for a team not bothering to put its best players on the floor and then ending up with an unknown draft pick in a non-hype player year.
    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
    My only disagreement is that I don't think it matters to the casuals. Winning is winning and losing is losing to them. The only way they would support a losing team is if there was a known superstar player that was either drafted or signed so they would come to see that person play, but overall until the team is relevant I don't believe the casuals care one way or the other.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

    Comment


    • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

      [QUOTE=3rdStrike;1915019]Maybe. If we had a different roster I might be more inclined to agree (note: tanking will always affect attendance negatively for that season; it's debatable if it has impact once the team recovers. Miami, Cleveland, Chicago all recovered the very next season). But if we're talking about attendance not dropping because of goodwill or whatever, I don't see that happening. It's gonna drop and it's gonna drop hard, people don't want to see basketball unless it's either winning OR exciting. This roster has 0 players that bring any sort of excitement factor, nobody with electric talent, nobody with personality, ...and we'll see how they do as far as winning. Fans aren't gonna show up because they feel sorry for the Pacers for PG breaking his leg or because they're thankful for last year. That's not how it works.


      Pacers went from 29th to 25th in attendance 2 years ago, and then last season from 25th to 15th. A big part of that 10 place jump was Paul George. Another big part was Lance Stephenson.[/QUOTE]

      Having the best record in the NBA for the first half of the season didn't hurt either. In fact I think that first half played a major part of why fans continued to come in March and April when the team was struggling to be above mediocre.


      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

      Comment


      • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

        Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
        Maybe. If we had a different roster I might be more inclined to agree (note: tanking will always affect attendance negatively for that season; it's debatable if it has impact once the team recovers. Miami, Cleveland, Chicago all recovered the very next season). But if we're talking about attendance not dropping because of goodwill or whatever, I don't see that happening. It's gonna drop and it's gonna drop hard, people don't want to see basketball unless it's either winning OR exciting. This roster has 0 players that bring any sort of excitement factor, nobody with electric talent, nobody with personality, ...and we'll see how they do as far as winning. Fans aren't gonna show up because they feel sorry for the Pacers for PG breaking his leg or because they're thankful for last year. That's not how it works.


        Pacers went from 29th to 25th in attendance 2 years ago, and then last season from 25th to 15th. A big part of that 10 place jump was Paul George. Another big part was Lance Stephenson.
        Lol what?! That's crazy. He played on our team the 3 previous seasons, and started the previous season. Our attendance rose dramatically because we had momentum following taking the Heat to game 7 in 2012 and then we had one of the hottest starts in NBA history.

        Comment


        • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

          The main reasons were taking the Heat to 7 and then having the hot start, but I will say that Lance is one of the most popular Fieldhouse Pacers that we've had since the Reggie era teams.

          Comment


          • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

            Originally posted by Peck View Post
            My only disagreement is that I don't think it matters to the casuals. Winning is winning and losing is losing to them. The only way they would support a losing team is if there was a known superstar player that was either drafted or signed so they would come to see that person play, but overall until the team is relevant I don't believe the casuals care one way or the other.
            I think the mistake is lumping all casual fans together in one group that only cares if we win.

            We should think of casual fans as the ones who come only because they enjoy the experience of being at the specific game they attend rather than the experience of attending game after game to cheer for their team no matter the individual experience.

            While I agree that winning is a major component of enjoyment, we've seen crowds leave games bored after sloppy wins and crowds leave energized after losses where the team played above its heads but was outmatched.

            I maintain that if crowds leave the game energized, the casuals will want to have that experience, win or lose. They'll bring their friends.

            Having a winning record can bring someone in the first time or make the game a bandwagon destination. That's why it's an advantage. But having a team that gives fans a fun game will bring then back even when the team is losing - and has a much better chance of creating a team fan from a casual fan then just attending when the team wins and ignoring them in favor of other things when the team loses.

            It's easier to market a winning team, but it also sometimes means the FO loses sight of everything else that makes the game experience great - so, to keep fans in down years, they have to cut prices to get them in the door every time (and when the cuts stop so does the attendance unless something else is there to keep them coming).

            Why do the Knicks still sell out even when they lose? Sure, a big part of it is that NY has enough die-hard fans to fill a dozen MSGs, but also because the Knicks are an event, win or lose.
            BillS

            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

            Comment


            • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
              Lol what?! That's crazy. He played on our team the 3 previous seasons, and started the previous season. Our attendance rose dramatically because we had momentum following taking the Heat to game 7 in 2012 and then we had one of the hottest starts in NBA history.
              Yeah, but not really. Last year was when Lance was allowed to be Lance, there's really no arguing that. Before that he was just 2nd round pick that Vogel told to stand in the corner and not turn the ball over. A guy who was frequently saddled with having Lou Amundson as his best on-court teammate. He wasn't known league-wide for anything other than receiving the dirtiest flying elbow in sports history courtesy of some scrub on the Miami Heat.


              Your argument is kind of like saying that PG blossoming into an All Star had nothing to do w/ attendance. After all, he was on the team 2 years prior. Of course it did. As I said, for fans to come out the product needs to be either winning OR exciting. When it's one, the attendance jumps. When it's both, the attendance jumps even higher.

              Comment


              • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

                I am anxious to see how this team fairs with all the problems we have had. I'm hoping for a 500 season, but things are more up in the air than ever before.
                Go Pacers!

                Comment


                • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

                  Originally posted by HC View Post
                  Add me also. The ignore list is for mental midgets.
                  I think there was a whole thread regarding that around 6 months ago. My opinions on the subject are stated there. To make it short: I see it as a spam filter.

                  Comment


                  • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

                    Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                    Pacers went from 29th to 25th in attendance 2 years ago, and then last season from 25th to 15th. A big part of that 10 place jump was Paul George. Another big part was Lance Stephenson.
                    Yip, that's what I think too. Lance played with heart and was fun to root for. I think the front office vastly underestimated his importance to the team.

                    Comment


                    • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

                      Yeah, going to the ECF had nothing to do with it.

                      Comment


                      • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

                        It seems like a lot of the people advocating tanking to get a high draft pick are the same people lamenting about losing a second round draft pick in Lance. Lance pretty much proves their tanking strategy wrong...lol. Or at least throws a monkey wrench in the mix.
                        Last edited by mildlysane; 10-22-2014, 04:25 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

                          Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                          Yeah, but not really. Last year was when Lance was allowed to be Lance, there's really no arguing that. Before that he was just 2nd round pick that Vogel told to stand in the corner and not turn the ball over. A guy who was frequently saddled with having Lou Amundson as his best on-court teammate. He wasn't known league-wide for anything other than receiving the dirtiest flying elbow in sports history courtesy of some scrub on the Miami Heat.


                          Your argument is kind of like saying that PG blossoming into an All Star had nothing to do w/ attendance. After all, he was on the team 2 years prior. Of course it did. As I said, for fans to come out the product needs to be either winning OR exciting. When it's one, the attendance jumps. When it's both, the attendance jumps even higher.
                          My thoughts on Lance are well documented. So to make sure I am not repetitive, I will simply say I disagree with you that Lance was a big reason that we had a large bump in attendance over the course of an entire season.

                          Comment


                          • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            I think the mistake is lumping all casual fans together in one group that only cares if we win.

                            We should think of casual fans as the ones who come only because they enjoy the experience of being at the specific game they attend rather than the experience of attending game after game to cheer for their team no matter the individual experience.

                            While I agree that winning is a major component of enjoyment, we've seen crowds leave games bored after sloppy wins and crowds leave energized after losses where the team played above its heads but was outmatched.

                            I maintain that if crowds leave the game energized, the casuals will want to have that experience, win or lose. They'll bring their friends.

                            Having a winning record can bring someone in the first time or make the game a bandwagon destination. That's why it's an advantage. But having a team that gives fans a fun game will bring then back even when the team is losing - and has a much better chance of creating a team fan from a casual fan then just attending when the team wins and ignoring them in favor of other things when the team loses.

                            It's easier to market a winning team, but it also sometimes means the FO loses sight of everything else that makes the game experience great - so, to keep fans in down years, they have to cut prices to get them in the door every time (and when the cuts stop so does the attendance unless something else is there to keep them coming).

                            Why do the Knicks still sell out even when they lose? Sure, a big part of it is that NY has enough die-hard fans to fill a dozen MSGs, but also because the Knicks are an event, win or lose.
                            I don't know if I agree or disagree but I think both of us are colored by the fact that we are native born Hoosiers and are on the wrong side of middle age. So we both share the same team first work ethic that we desire to see. Nothing would have made either of us any happier than to see our team ball beat the Heat.

                            However I just honestly don't believe someone 30 and younger, especially middle to late teens is going to get excited to come to a Pacer game without the aspect of winning or having a star to watch.

                            We might win some games but as has been stated by another poster, we have no stars on this team to rally behind because of their exciting play.

                            David West is a great player but I assure you he appeals more to someone like us than some 17 year old who wants to see high flying dunks and fast breaks. So yes I agree that exciting play can generate some casual interest but at the end of the day our team as constructed has no athletic players who are going to draw fans out to watch play. So that leads solely to the win/loss column and that I'm afraid is not going to be pretty this year.


                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment


                            • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

                              Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                              I generally agree, although I'd wordsmith it to potential superstar. This is an issue of semantics, which I've explained before. My definition of superstar includes not just regular season stats/performance, but also an iconic playoff performance - not just isolated single games, but a series where the player's impact is consistently outstanding - and, at least, a finals appearance. PG has flirted with the second part to a degree, but has yet to fully deliver on that definition. I understand why others might not agree or emphasize the second component as strongly.

                              But, back to your point upon which we agree, it would appear we have the potential centerpiece pending complete recovery from the injury. That's the silver lining to this unfortunate circumstance. Personally, I'm hoping we have a significantly different cast surrounding him a year from now, and that PG continues to develop into the definition I prefer of superstar.
                              Personally, I'm hoping that we retain our main core (Hill, West, Hibbert) and only change the surrounding bench pieces. I don't think that it's going to be easy for PG to adjust to new players on the court and new faces in the locker room when he returns. I don't think that it would be fair for him to be injured and when he returns to the court to find a completely different team that is nowhere near as good as the team he was on.

                              As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I agree. I don't have any issue with calling PG a potential superstar. It's true that he's not completely up there yet but he's getting close.
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment


                              • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

                                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                                Yeah, going to the ECF had nothing to do with it.
                                1. Who said it had nothing to do with it?
                                2. We went to the ECF two seasons in a row, but we had a 10 spot jump between seasons. If current success is the main reason, the 10 spot jump is unaccounted for. If prior success is the main reason, then the Pacers will remain around #15 this year. If neither is the main reason, and you disagree with what others have suggested, then what is the key to attendance for the Pacers if not winning + excitement?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X