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

Christmas Day Games: AKA TV executives don't watch basketball

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
    the NFL has it kind of easy just because of the nature of football. it's one game a week, only 16 in a season, so they're all extremely important. and the vast majority happen on Sunday afternoons when America isn't doing crap all else. then you consider that football teams are huge, for most of the country if you wanted to play football in high school the odds are pretty good that all you had to do was get a physical and show up and boom you're on the team. then there's the gambling and fantasy football, both "easier" and more abundant because of the scarcity of NFL games.

    the NBA isn't going to be able to compete with the NFL in the US anytime soon, but youth football participation is already declining (mostly in favor of soccer, which has their own concussion issues especially at the youth level) and they'll make gains because of it. we're all big NBA fans so it'd be cool to see the NBA be THE league in the US sure, but you're also ignoring that the NBA is the only American pro league that even comes close to approaching being a global league. Tom Brady's just some white dude if he goes to China, Antonio Bryant can wander around Germany w/o a care in the world. if you're a fringe NBA All Star there's not a whole lot of places in the world you can go where you're not gonna get hounded.
    Agreed on all fronts.

    For the record, the only thing I'm suggesting is taking one small play out of the NFL marketing playbook. And that is, obviously, the ability to simply market each and every team with success to the public, without this weird imbalance, where it is assumed that a team has to be from New York or LA, or the 300 million Americans not from those two cities won't be interested. We're talking small improvements that I believe not only help the level on a competitive level, but also help sell it to the public. If the NBA never matches the success of the NFL, for the various reasons listed, obviously that doesn't matter, everyone is making money,on all fronts. They're different leagues, and it would be hard to match the success of the NFL if you're the NBA.

    Frankly, the NBA doesn't have to do anything differently. They're doing exceptionally well.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
      the NFL has it kind of easy just because of the nature of football. it's one game a week, only 16 in a season, so they're all extremely important. and the vast majority happen on Sunday afternoons when America isn't doing crap all else. then you consider that football teams are huge, for most of the country if you wanted to play football in high school the odds are pretty good that all you had to do was get a physical and show up and boom you're on the team. then there's the gambling and fantasy football, both "easier" and more abundant because of the scarcity of NFL games.

      the NBA isn't going to be able to compete with the NFL in the US anytime soon, but youth football participation is already declining (mostly in favor of soccer, which has their own concussion issues especially at the youth level) and they'll make gains because of it. we're all big NBA fans so it'd be cool to see the NBA be THE league in the US sure, but you're also ignoring that the NBA is the only American pro league that even comes close to approaching being a global league. Tom Brady's just some white dude if he goes to China, Antonio Bryant can wander around Germany w/o a care in the world. if you're a fringe NBA All Star there's not a whole lot of places in the world you can go where you're not gonna get hounded.
      Excellent. The reasons you mention in the first paragraph are really show stoppers.

      I would also add that due to the number of players involved it is far more difficult to have a dominating team where the opposition essentially has no real chance to win such that many oeople just stop following teams.

      It also has to be a “real” sport/league to draw many fans. This means it needs to be a fairly run league in terms of trades and player acquisitions. NBA players seem to want to run the league so they form super teams that jack up competition. Then there is the fact NFL trades are less about business/financials (e.g. dumping salary) and more about acquiring talent and building a team. Fans essentially recognize that the NFL holds more true to a fairly competitive sports league and that draws wider appeal.
      Last edited by BlueNGold; 08-13-2018, 06:19 AM.

      Comment


      • #48
        people say this "market the team stuff" all the time. the Warriors are obviously the best team in the league, Steph's a top 5 dude, bet a whole helluva lot more people know who the Golden State Warriors are than Steph Curry, definitely Klay or Draymond or Kerr, even KD. nobody gives a damn about Harden. same deal with the Spurs dynasty of the past, even when they had Kawhi and Duncan Pop may've been the most recognizable face of that franchise. remember when the Pistons were the ultimate anti-hero team for a minute? nobody gave a **** other than NBA fans, same deal with the Nets coming outta the East. those were dark times. funny thing is those Pistons teams would be internet darlings now.

        they don't push the team because Joe Public that's flipping channels on a Thursday night has better stuff to do than realize The Process might actually be working or the Pacers traded their superstar for a (kinda) hometown guy that might be even better. it takes investment to understand that stuff, most people just have better stuff to do. but Joe Public with any interest in sports absolutely will stop and watch LeBron for a bit on a random weekday night, but it really ends there. you can market teams all you want, I don't think it's going to get a worthwhile number of people invested compared to pushing individuals, following an NBA team is a time sink man. so you push individuals, you push big plays, you push how damn fun your random game in February is, you push the league as a whole and get their teeth in then hopefully you hook em.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
          people say this "market the team stuff" all the time. the Warriors are obviously the best team in the league, Steph's a top 5 dude, bet a whole helluva lot more people know who the Golden State Warriors are than Steph Curry, definitely Klay or Draymond or Kerr, even KD. nobody gives a damn about Harden. same deal with the Spurs dynasty of the past, even when they had Kawhi and Duncan Pop may've been the most recognizable face of that franchise. remember when the Pistons were the ultimate anti-hero team for a minute? nobody gave a **** other than NBA fans, same deal with the Nets coming outta the East. those were dark times. funny thing is those Pistons teams would be internet darlings now.

          they don't push the team because Joe Public that's flipping channels on a Thursday night has better stuff to do than realize The Process might actually be working or the Pacers traded their superstar for a (kinda) hometown guy that might be even better. it takes investment to understand that stuff, most people just have better stuff to do. but Joe Public with any interest in sports absolutely will stop and watch LeBron for a bit on a random weekday night, but it really ends there. you can market teams all you want, I don't think it's going to get a worthwhile number of people invested compared to pushing individuals, following an NBA team is a time sink man. so you push individuals, you push big plays, you push how damn fun your random game in February is, you push the league as a whole and get their teeth in then hopefully you hook em.

          Let me rewrite this. Make it simpler, and less wordy. (word vomit).

          So essentially what I've been suggesting is the following:

          That the League does successfully market teams outside of star talent. See: Lakers, Knicks.
          That the League sometimes does NOT market players based purely on star talent: Example is the Bucks getting 14 games despite having a top 3 marketable star in the NBA, Giannis — the argument being, given his star power, that he should at least have 20-30 primetime TV games given his stature.

          That because the NBA, is able to successfully market a team like the Lakers/Knicks on primetime games to viewers in every city, viewers that are not necessarily fans of the Lakers/Knicks, and because those teams did not have the star power to necessarily warrant that exposure, the suggestion is, with a different strategy the NBA would be more successful marketing superior talented teams, on a national level.

          Further, the successful marketing of these other teams that are not normally marketed to the viewing public, to casual fans, that not only would it eventually lead to higher viewership nationwide, that those individual teams could potentially end up with higher local TV ratings within their own markets, AND higher ticket sales, because the NBA and the national media essentially legitimized those franchises, making local fan bases excited, and drawing in larger crowds.

          Now, I realize, that maybe I'm completely wrong. However, I don't think there is much evidence, that the NBA's current focus, on some specific franchises is the best way, despite the current ratings success. It IS the way things have always been done. However, we haven't seen really any legitimate effort to do things differently.

          The concessions are as follows: Yes, the NBA will do well regardless in ratings and revenues. They do not have to change anything. The crux of my position is to suggest they could do better, and I truly believe they would see serious results (how much better those results are remain to be seen and is obviously up for discussion).

          TIA!
          Last edited by mattie; 08-13-2018, 07:53 PM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Rewrote. I get wordy and repeat myself. I tried again. See above post. thx.
            Last edited by mattie; 08-13-2018, 07:50 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
              people say this "market the team stuff" all the time. the Warriors are obviously the best team in the league, Steph's a top 5 dude, bet a whole helluva lot more people know who the Golden State Warriors are than Steph Curry, definitely Klay or Draymond or Kerr, even KD. nobody gives a damn about Harden. same deal with the Spurs dynasty of the past, even when they had Kawhi and Duncan Pop may've been the most recognizable face of that franchise. remember when the Pistons were the ultimate anti-hero team for a minute? nobody gave a **** other than NBA fans, same deal with the Nets coming outta the East. those were dark times. funny thing is those Pistons teams would be internet darlings now.

              they don't push the team because Joe Public that's flipping channels on a Thursday night has better stuff to do than realize The Process might actually be working or the Pacers traded their superstar for a (kinda) hometown guy that might be even better. it takes investment to understand that stuff, most people just have better stuff to do. but Joe Public with any interest in sports absolutely will stop and watch LeBron for a bit on a random weekday night, but it really ends there. you can market teams all you want, I don't think it's going to get a worthwhile number of people invested compared to pushing individuals, following an NBA team is a time sink man. so you push individuals, you push big plays, you push how damn fun your random game in February is, you push the league as a whole and get their teeth in then hopefully you hook em.
              This is all very true and explains a number if reasons why it is a very strange league. It is really pseudo sports because of these and other gyrations the league makes to further its goals.

              Comment


              • #52
                I gotta give the NBA credit - the national TV dispersion is pretty fair and reasonable. Teams like the Pacers, Wolves, and Jazz have been rewarded for quality seasons. The Knicks only have 5 games - thankfully the league is realizing that franchise does nothing to advance the popularity of the sport outside of the boroughs. Way too many games for a first round loser in the Thunder, but overall pretty solid.

                Things have definitely improved in this department under Silver.
                Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-14-2018, 11:24 AM.

                Comment

                Working...
                X