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

My wife proves my point, sorta.

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

  • My wife proves my point, sorta.

    I was watching the home game vs the Warriors. My wife got the kids to fall asleep and joined me in the basement for the second half. A few minutes pass and Al drains a three. She cheered ( supporting former Pacers is accepted in our household). I didn't think anything of it until she started to get pissed that they gave the points to the Warriors. Imagine her confusion, similar colors, Jackson, Al & Crosh.

    This is a person who lives with a die-hard. She'll was still confused. That's one of the major problems I see with fan disinterest. They don't know who the players are anymore. This is something I continually brought up in various threads about attendance, fan interest etc...It's also a reason I'm somewhat inclined to support standing pat with the current roster and build with free agents and draft picks. People seem to be more interested in players they've known for awhile than even a superstar that's relatively new. Thoughts?
    I'm in these bands
    The Humans
    Dr. Goldfoot
    The Bar Brawlers
    ME

  • #2
    Re: My wife proves my point, sorta.

    What relatively new superstar do we have?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: My wife proves my point, sorta.

      That was hypothetical. Superstar was an overstatement I guess. I was thinking if you asked the average person in Indiana if they'd rather have Mike Bibby or Fred Jones you'd be surprised by the answer.
      Last edited by Dr. Goldfoot; 01-18-2008, 02:32 PM.
      I'm in these bands
      The Humans
      Dr. Goldfoot
      The Bar Brawlers
      ME

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: My wife proves my point, sorta.

        Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
        A few minutes pass and Al drains a three. She cheered ( supporting former Pacers is accepted in our household). I didn't think anything of it until she started to get pissed that they gave the points to the Warriors. Imagine her confusion, similar colors, Jackson, Al & Crosh.

        This is a person who lives with a die-hard. She'll was still confused. That's one of the major problems I see with fan disinterest. They don't know who the players are anymore. This is something I continually brought up in various threads about attendance, fan interest etc...It's also a reason I'm somewhat inclined to support standing pat with the current roster and build with free agents and draft picks. People seem to be more interested in players they've known for awhile than even a superstar that's relatively new. Thoughts?
        I can see your point in "standing pat", but I'm also concerned about holding on to players FOR WAYYYYY TOO LONG in hopes that they can turn things around and/or increase their trade value.

        If the opportunity to move Tinsley and / or JONeal presents itself for players that make sense and don't kill the team from a Salary POV for the next 2 seasons between now and the start of the 2008 Training camp, then I am all for moving them.

        Otherwise, we will likely "stand pat"....only because we have no choice.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: My wife proves my point, sorta.

          Good point, I hear all the time "I don't even know who the players are anymore" Of course I find that impossible to believe.

          Edit: but the only way for players to become known is for the team to win, because unless the team wins, no one will watch.

          Most casual fans, know who JO is, they certainly know who Tinsley is - and no, none of them have any idea that he was having an excellent season. Beyond those two, they really aren't sure who the other guys are. Except, oh yeah, Foster - didn't realize he was still on the team. But our female fans probably would say, who is that cute little point guard - he looks like he should be a kid trying to date our teenage daughter.
          Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-18-2008, 03:52 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: My wife proves my point, sorta.

            I can't agree with you at all. I think it all comes down to winning and losing. Us "hardcore" fans will watch/discuss the team regardless, but the vast majority are only seriously interested in the team when they're relevant (winning). Superstars help bring in W's, help make teams relevant via the additional TV exposure, and are almost always more exciting to watch perform than non-superstars.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: My wife proves my point, sorta.

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Good point, I hear all the time "I don't even know who the players are anymore" Of course I find that impossible to believe
              Of course we do but then again most of us know the rosters for the d-leagues. I just consider continuity more than just somewhat important. This team has seen major overhauls to the roster in the last three seasons.

              Players who've borrowed the blue and gold uniform since '04-'05. (either weren't part of the 61 team or are no longer with us since then)

              Britton Johnson
              Tremaine Fowlkes
              John Edwards
              Michael Curry
              Marcus Haislip
              Jonathan Bender
              Ron Artest
              Dale Davis
              Scot Pollard
              Eddie Gill
              James Jones
              Anthony Johnson
              Austin Croshere
              Fred Jones
              Stephen Jackson
              Reggie Miller
              Peja Stojakovic
              Danny Granger
              Sarunus Jasikevicius
              Samaki Walker
              Mike Dunleavy
              Al Harrington
              Troy Murphy
              Darrell Armstrong
              Marquis Daniels
              Ike Diogu
              Shawne Williams
              Maceo Baston
              Rawle Marshall
              Keith McLeod
              Orien Greene
              Josh Powell
              Kareem Rush
              Travis Diener
              Andre Owens
              Stephen Graham
              Courtney Sims
              I'm in these bands
              The Humans
              Dr. Goldfoot
              The Bar Brawlers
              ME

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: My wife proves my point, sorta.

                I lived in Chicago during the post-jordan dark years and none of those players were well known either.

                Even the TV sports guys were calling the team "the Terri-Bulls".

                If the Pacers make one or preferably two playoff appearances, the leaders will begin to become known.
                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: My wife proves my point, sorta.

                  I went to the game with my Parents, brother and two friends. My mom and brother were bragging about how they stick with the P's no matter what. We get seated and players are warming up and my mom asks, "Where's Rick at?"

                  uh... "Are you freaking serious!?"

                  "What? where is he?"

                  I don't know the point of telling this but...no one knows anything about the Pacers anymore!
                  AKA Sactolover05

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: My wife proves my point, sorta.

                    I agree with Peck.
                    And I won't be here to see the day
                    It all dries up and blows away
                    I'd hang around just to see
                    But they never had much use for me
                    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: My wife proves my point, sorta.

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      Good point, I hear all the time "I don't even know who the players are anymore" Of course I find that impossible to believe.
                      especially considering how many have their pictures hanging in indianapolis post offices.
                      This is the darkest timeline.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: My wife proves my point, sorta.

                        Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                        I agree with Peck.
                        Smart move.....
                        PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: My wife proves my point, sorta.

                          Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                          I lived in Chicago during the post-jordan dark years and none of those players were well known either.

                          Even the TV sports guys were calling the team "the Terri-Bulls".

                          If the Pacers make one or preferably two playoff appearances, the leaders will begin to become known.
                          But then that's the chicken and the egg isn't it. When the leaders/star emerge, the team will make a solid playoff effort (ie, not just squeaking into a sub-500 4 and done situation).

                          Ultimately you just have to work on the team aspect and let the fans find their way to it.

                          You know the Star had a nice stat that picked up my spirits. It showed how many times the team had been farther below .500 at this point or beyond and still made the playoffs. Each time was at least 40 wins even IIRC. So I start thinking "sure, I guess it could happen, it's looked worse."

                          But for the purpose of this thread I always have harped that the Reggie teams had low attendence too until the ECF runs. Well 3-4 of those "way below 500" comeback seasons were those early Reggie teams. So when you think about it, even though they had good players and a good overall product, the terrible starts hurt early fan interest and curbed later fan interest with a sense of hesitation on how legit their winning was.

                          This team needs to get over 500 and maintain it for a few months. Not big, but at least enough to become normal news. Then a decent showing in the playoffs, at least by key players if not the full team. Then a decent addition or two and a solid above 500 start next season.

                          At that point you probably would start to build some interest and identity in the minds of the casual fan. I don't think you have to stand pat to do it, but you do need to keep and market 3-4 key guys. At this point you assume Dun, Danny, JO and perhaps Jeff, but really it's just going to be whoever gets the job done.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: My wife proves my point, sorta.

                            The Pacers had an unusually stable roster from 1994 through 2000 - I think fans got used to the same players being here year, after year, after year, after year, after year.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: My wife proves my point, sorta.

                              The big issue here is marketing OUTSIDE of Pacerland. Winning will gain the Pacers a portion of those advertising dollars, i.e., nationally televised games (TNT, ESPN, ABC) vice local/cablevision (FSN-IN/MidWest/NBA-LP). That's the biggest problem with the lack of real exposure for this franchise.

                              Would it help to get a marque player? Yes! But in a small market area I wouldn't hold my breath on that happening. I mean, it took a player, ala Reggie Miller, to "make" himself a superstar and defy the odds in the biggest sports arena in the US - NYC against the Knicks - before this franchise ever truly got on the map. What will it take to get this team back in the spotlight of the NBA world (besides night club incidents, drug issues and all out slug fests)? IMO, two things:

                              1) WINNING ball games particularly against big named teams/players; and,

                              2) someone on the roster truly making a name for himself by playing the game the right way. I think Dunleavy, Granger and Deiner all stand the best chance of doing that.

                              Bottom line: Get on the winning side of ball games, stay out of the negative spot light, and then you'll get some of that national TV exposure, and before you know it everyone will know the name of somebody on this team....kinda like Cheers, huh?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X