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

Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

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

  • #76
    Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    Originally posted by OrganizedConfusion View Post
    Downtown in its current state would not exist if not for Indiana Sports Corp. Sports were the driving force behind the revitalization of downtown in the 1980's, there's no other way to look at it.
    Well there's no arguing with that, given that "in its current state" includes what's here. But sports alone did not create downtown Indianapolis. It was a very complete plan. Consider one sentence again from the Wikipedia entry on Hudnut:

    Over the sixteen years of his term, more than 30 major building projects took place downtown.
    Five or so of those were sports-related. Hoosier Dome, Market Square Arena, natatorium, IUPUI track stadium and the ice rink at Pan Am plaza.

    The rest (the great majority) were offices, apartment rehabs, medical facilities and other non-sports resources.

    No industry benefitted from sports downtown as much as the restaurants, but ask 50 downtown restaurants what they'd do if they had to choose between the "after the game" crowd and the ordinary lunch crowd of office workers. Most would pick the lunch crowd, which is made of insurance clerks, state bureaucrats, cops and lawyers, corporate realtors, etc.
    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


    • #77
      Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

      Kravitz continued...

      "Talk to anybody who has ever worked over there, and they will tell you the place is bloated with self-entitled executives and an owner Herb Simon, who doesn't know how to say no to anybody or anything.

      "For years, Simon was paying nearly $10 million combined annually to a team president, Donnie Walsh, an apprentice in Larry Bird and David Morway to run the franchise. He paid coach Jim O'Brien a healthy sum when nobody else in the league was interested in his services. He paid for a host of useless advisers, including a Republican pollster named Frank Luntz, who rolled in for a few weeks to tell the population that Pacers fans will embrace the team again when they start winning.

      "(Simon could have given me a six-pack of beer and I would have told him that.)

      "Everybody involved in this mess has cut and cut, including the CIVB. What have the Pacers done? Fired Bowser? Show us the books. Show us where all the cost-cutting has occurred. Have team executives been hit with salary cuts and furloughs like the rest of us, or are they just taking slightly less now, only to have that cash deferred until later? How are we looking on country-club memberships and other corporate perks?

      "Let's bring in an independent auditor to look at the books - and I'm not talking about the kind of auditor who has already been through, and was charged with simply determining whether the Pacers' use of funds on the building was proper and legal. I want a third party to look at the way the Pacers do business, and I want him, or her, to tell me whether they've done everything possible to cut costs.

      "Then we'll talk.

      "Look, in the end, it's important for both parties to reach an agreement and for the Pacers to stay. The Pacers need this city and this city needs the Pacers. If the team leaves, the CIB is still stuck with a bill for more than $15 million annually.

      "But the taxpayers are all tapped out. The city is all tapped out. Cash for Clunkers is done. There's nothing left to give, and honestly, even if there was, I'm not sure there's a compelling argument her to recommend a bailout (and I know how much Herb hates that word).

      "This isn't like selling beach volleyball to the people of Fargo. This is basketball in Indiana. That's not YOUR problem or MY problem.

      "That's THEIR problem."

      The majority was typed by my daughter, who types at 90 words/minute.
      {o,o}
      |)__)
      -"-"-

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

        Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
        Supposing you live in Indianapolis or the surrounding counties, where is it you plan to move so you can be far enough away from the tax implications this will cause? Most likely has to be 2 counties away from Indy if the donut counties get involved, and with State getting involved in this, it will most likely drag the donut counties into paying for his. So where you gonna move to? I hear Anderson is a great place to live....LOL!

        The Indy donut counties aren't going to be paying for the Pacers maintance. It will be the Indy tax payers footing the bill.

        FYI, sanity prevailed for not every donut county, as you refer to them as, buckled to Indianapolis-Marion County to help pay for the Colts stadium.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          Can we get Kravitz Sunday column. Will it be available later
          Here you go. :-)
          {o,o}
          |)__)
          -"-"-

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

            Originally posted by owl View Post


            The majority was typed by my daughter, who types at 90 words/minute.
            Give our thanks and graditude to your daughter. I, for one, greatly appreciated her taking her time to do it!

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

              If the CIB stands up to the Pacers then bravo.

              I've been a Pacer fan most of my life but their demands are outrageous.

              Time for Bird and company to take a pay cut. If all the sweetheart deals ended, they'd come up with 15 million easily.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                Originally posted by Swingman View Post
                If the CIB stands up to the Pacers then bravo.

                I've been a Pacer fan most of my life but their demands are outrageous.

                Time for Bird and company to take a pay cut. If all the sweetheart deals ended, they'd come up with 15 million easily.
                It's not going to happen, but this is really the right thing to do.

                It's a sad case when Jamaal Tinsley, who doesn't even live here anymore, is being paid half that amount by the Pacers...while IPS teachers are getting cut. I know a really good young teacher who lost his job.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                  Originally posted by Stryder View Post
                  Stop referencing the "sweetheart deal" the Colts negotiated. That is an independent and situation that is not related to the facts at hand. This negotiation is between the CIB and the Pacers; not the Colts, CIB, and Pacers...
                  Why? If, as Kravitz says, it is appropriate to examine the Pacers' books to find out why they are losing money, why is it not appropriate to hold the CIB responsible for their massive blunder that is not only harming the Pacers but is pretty much responsible for the harm to every other thing they are supposed to be handling?
                  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


                  • #84
                    Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                    Originally posted by owl View Post
                    Kravitz cont...

                    If a basketball franchise in Indiana can't make it, especially in a jewel of a new building that is the envy of the league, that is a YOU problem, and not an US problem. If you lose money 28 of 30 years, including every year with near sell-outs at a new building through the early 2000s, that says everything about your business inefficiencies and ineptitude and nothing about the tax-payers.
                    yes those 2 years they made money was when they sold out. Reading this whole article makes me so angry

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                      Originally posted by owl View Post

                      ". He paid coach Jim O'Brien a healthy sum when nobody else in the league was interested in his services.
                      That is an idiotic statement. What does Bob suggest, not paying a coach at all, maybe accepting volunteers. JOB's contract is very average.


                      Thanks Owl -

                      Reading that almost makes me say, fine, let the Pacers move, who cares, maybe the city doesn't, they can do better elsewhere.
                      Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-20-2010, 09:29 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        That is an idiotic statement. What does Bob suggest, not paying a coach at all, maybe accepting volunteers. JOB's contract is very average.


                        Thanks Owl -

                        Reading that almost makes me say, fine, let the Pacers move, who cares, maybe the city doesn't, they can do better elsewhere.
                        At this point, it seems that Bob is saying that the Pacers have the wrong coach and that they overpaid for a coach that probably would not be coaching professionally today if the Pacers were not employing him, which may well be true.

                        However, the Pacers are likely giving O'B what they thought they had to in light of their situation, and not a penny more, with the only concern being the extension through next year. Perhaps the extension was for the best because of what is going on now, and the franchise realized that negotiations with the CIB would very likely not go well enough to justify making a move towards progressing the franchise forward from a coaching standpoint until after the negotiations conclude, and in reality probably not until everyone from Bird down to TJ have their contracts expire after this season. That would leave whoever is in charge of the franchise at that point, if anyone actually is (it could just fold if it is simply a cold business decision), in a position to be able to recreate the franchise in whatever way they see fit and wherever that may be.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                          I think it would be a disaster if the Pacers left. Regardless of the situation, nothing makes a city look worse than a pro team leaving.

                          The NBA needs to figure out a way to get rid of these ridiculous guaranteed contracts. That would solve a lot of problems for the teams. I know it probably will never happen though unfortunately...

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post

                            maybe the city doesn't, they can do better elsewhere.

                            So if the City doesn't come up with the money, it means they don't care? That's a poor comment to have made. The City has other obligations for their tax monies that are "far more important" than paying the maintance on Conseco for a billionaire owner. They have to work within the budget of the monies they have, and in order to get the 15 mil it's got to come in the form of new tax/taxes. Simon is wanting a bailout at the taxpayers expense. Sorry, the taxpayers don't owe it to him. Why increase or create new taxes for the residents to save him from paying 15 mil. Conseco holds 17,000 people and a good % of those who go to the games aren't even from Marion county, but Pacer fans want Marion county residents to have to pay for it. Not being able to pay and not wanting to pay is 2 different things.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                              I wish I had the articles to back this up, but I remember way back when that the Pacers made a big deal about getting control of the Fieldhouse. Sure, they talked about Suites and club seats, but they said it was imperative that they were responsible for operating the Fieldhouse, and the big reason they lost money at MSA was they didn't have that control.

                              That's what really pisses me off about this. Maybe I would be more sympathetic to their plight if I didn't remember that so vividly.
                              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                                Check out the Colts deal on their stadium. The Pacers should have a similar deal.
                                Go Pacers!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X