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

Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

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

  • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
    Remember Roy and Oden were injured because Nate didn't condition them enough, lol
    You guys laugh about this, but you know that Nate, KP and a lot of the leadership of those Blazer teams got busted for ignoring a pretty scathing report from an independent research firm they hired to examine the gaits and running patterns of their players right?

    Roy and Oden in particular were suggested by this group that they needed more rest to heal existing injuries and the study even suggested that Oden should sit out like an entire year to heal and fix his running gait and the Blazers ignored the report.


    Comment


    • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

      Isn't it telling that when Nate left Portland he was not hired as a head coach again for 4 years and when he was it was by a franchise that happened to already have him on the salary?


      Comment


      • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

        The result of the coaching search was definitely a let down.

        Knowing what we know now (Bird leaving), if we were determined to hire a retread I wish it would have been McHale.

        Comment


        • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
          The result of the coaching search was definitely a let down.

          Knowing what we know now (Bird leaving), if we were determined to hire a retread I wish it would have been McHale.
          Or knowing that this offseason could have the level of overturn it has proven to had (which we should have), I think the best course would have been, keep Vogel for one more year, hope the Pacers improve on their 45 win mark. If not, then you move on from Vogel and likely PG and actually start anew. Instead we're now stuck with Nate and my big concern is that he is going to continue to hamstring the usage of Myles on offense.


          Comment


          • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
            Isn't it telling that when Nate left Portland he was not hired as a head coach again for 4 years and when he was it was by a franchise that happened to already have him on the salary?
            No...not really. Maybe he didn't want to be Head Coach anymore.


            Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

            Comment


            • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

              I think the Nate hire is a perfect example of why people don't have confidence in this organization to lay all the cards on the table. I would have preferred that we kept Vogel, but I could have listened to canning him if we were going to conduct a real outside coaching search instead of lazily promoting an assistant who at best is completely average.

              We're an attractive organization. We're one of the more successful franchises over the last 25 years, have good fan support, play in a beautiful arena, and a year ago had Paul George as well as a promising rookie in Turner. I think we could have had some quality candidates interested. I would have rather taken a gamble on an unproven assistant (like 2011 Vogel) than go with proven mediocre like McMillan.

              To Walsh's credit, he made some bold external hires in Brown, Bird, and Zeke (though that one didn't work out so well). I'll just never understand why we were so lazy a year ago.

              Comment


              • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                No...not really. Maybe he didn't want to be Head Coach anymore.
                lol


                Comment


                • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                  Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                  No...not really. Maybe he didn't want to be Head Coach anymore.
                  Well he interviewed with Sacramento in 2016, LA and Cleveland in 2014, LAC, Atlanta, Milwaukee and Detroit in 2013 and Charlotte in 2012.

                  Something tells me he was interested in being a head coach somewhere.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                    "have good fan support"???????

                    Comment


                    • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                      Originally posted by I Love P View Post
                      "have good fan support"???????

                      Absolutely. Our 90's fan support was insane. From 04-11, we really did everything possible to horrify and run off customers: the infamous brawl, Artest trade demand, multiple scary off the court incidents, etc. Then we got rid of the bad seeds, but replaced them with crappy players who played an unwatchable form of basketball coached by Jim O'Brien. It would really be impossible for a team to do more to run off their fans. We did everything wrong that you possibly could.

                      Then look how quickly they came back from 11-14. The crowds during the 2013 run were electrifying, and that was just two and a half years after the team was still loathed with O'Brien as the coach. There has always been a deep undercurrent of support for the Pacers. The bottom line is that bad/mediocre NBA basketball sucks, so you do have to build something. When we build something, the fans show up.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                        http://www.espn.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2015

                        Comment


                        • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                          Originally posted by I Love P View Post
                          "have good fan support"???????
                          Yeah, you know that every city has the "best fans in the country".

                          Comment


                          • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                            If you go to home playoff games then yes...best fans ever, although depends on who the series is against. If it's vs ATL or Orlando like a few years ago you can get in for about $6 a game, but still sold out. If you play Chicago or lebron it's about 60/40 Pacers fans....actually vs Chicago it's 70/30 Bulls-Pacers. If you watch regular season home games from your couch then you probably think there's good support by what Chris Denari says. Denari lies about the attendance each home game. He'll say 17,400 in attendance tonight & you'll see from different camera angles the club/balcony is about 9% full.

                            The Pacers & Colts both share the same fanbase, you need 4-5 seasons straight of great play to get the fanbase back & have to continue the success to keep them around. Those b2b ECF teams from a few years back would probably just now starting to sell out each game had they kept their success.. The Colts are losing a big chunk of their "fanbase" after these last two 8-8 seasons. 70% of people who attend Colts games go because they're good or it's the "cool thing to do," they just wanna be seen or be able to say they went to the game. More of a party or event than a game.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                              So in a dreadfully boring season in which our superstar was out with a gruesome leg injury and we didn't make the playoffs, we still filled at 93% capacity. Yep, solid support.

                              You do realize that if the Pacers filled to 100% capacity, the best they could be is 13th because of arena size, right?

                              Hell, we had the fifth highest local TV rating this past season, and that was with an incredibly mediocre team! Google the Sports Business Journal study.

                              Pacers fan support is inarguably good, all things considered.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                                You guys laugh about this, but you know that Nate, KP and a lot of the leadership of those Blazer teams got busted for ignoring a pretty scathing report from an independent research firm they hired to examine the gaits and running patterns of their players right?

                                Roy and Oden in particular were suggested by this group that they needed more rest to heal existing injuries and the study even suggested that Oden should sit out like an entire year to heal and fix his running gait and the Blazers ignored the report.
                                The story I remember said the GM were for the tests but the medical staff found the tests absurd and completely dismissed them. I don't even remember Nate being involved.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X