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

IBJ: Pacers' troubles bad for city, too

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

  • #46
    Re: IBJ: Pacers' troubles bad for city, too

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    So credit season ticket holders with a discount equal to a free ticket when they buy their season tickets next year for each time you give away tickets in their section. I'd think that would be fair and can't imagine it would be too hard to sell. Heck, give season ticket holders 1.5x credit and it doesn't cost much more while giving them a reward for their loyalty.

    From another point of view, would you really be upset if the Pacers gave away $10 or $20 tickets? Would you - as a season ticket holder at your level - have chosen not to buy your season tickets because you had a chance to get maybe 3 or 4 free tickets a year in the upper bowl?

    The whole thing is that you have to be creative (I know, not a word often associated with Pacers' marketing, but still). Selling "if we get the Fieldhouse filled your season ticket buys a better fan experience" shouldn't be that hard.
    Hey, I'm all for getting more "fans" to the games. And if they need to give some tickets away at reduced prices, that is fine by me, even free tickets on occasion. I was responding to Kemo and his desire for the Pacers just to give tickets away for free - seemed to me he was advocating giving away expensive tickets for free as a general rule.

    But if Saturday night I see someone new sitting next to me and I ask him where he got the ticket, and he says I got it free from the Pacers. OK, maybe one game to get him there for a game. But if he or someone else starts getting free tickets as a general rule, I lose all incentive to even buy season tickets next season.

    But if I were in charge of marketing/ticket sales, I would take care of season ticket holders first and I would never do anything that creates an incentive for them not to renew their tickets

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: IBJ: Pacers' troubles bad for city, too

      Well, if they give away tickets for free there's at least a chance they'll get something in the way of concessions. If they make $10 off a person that's $10 they didn't have before.

      Speaking as someone who would only go to a game if it was free (20 years ago before I had the money to buy tickets) I don't have a problem with it.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: IBJ: Pacers' troubles bad for city, too

        Could be worse:

        http://www.suntimes.com/sports/mario...020708.article

        Cheapskate Bulls have quit on fans

        February 7, 2008
        BY JAY MARIOTTI Sun-Times Columnist

        For a family of four to watch the MiseraBulls, it costs a disgusting $335. And I'm not talking about a high-living night, either, as much as an ordinary, squint-to-see-the-Luvabulls experience in your cavernous United Center: four average-priced tickets, two small beers, four small soft drinks, four hot dogs, parking, two caps, two game programs.

        It's the fourth-highest ticket in the NBA, a 15.3-percent hike over last season, and I assemble these numbers from Team Marketing Report to illustrate how Jerry Reinsdorf has backstabbed his fan base like few owners in sports. When presented with a prime opportunity last week to improve his dysfunctional, underachieving, unlikable and regressing basketball team, Reinsdorf did not want to make a trade with Memphis for Pau Gasol. Why?
        ยป Click to enlarge image
        Shaquille O'Neal being traded to the Suns shows an attempt by the team to improve, which is what the Bulls should do instead of passing on players because Jerry Reinsdorf doesn't want to exceed the league's luxury tax.
        (AP file)

        RELATED STORIES
        Inside the Bulls: Pax weighs in on team Shaq promises surprises with Suns Short-handed Bulls fall short

        Oh, because he didn't want to exceed the league's luxury tax. The same man who has no problem jacking up ticket prices, for a product that has turned out woefully inferior, can't make an exception for Gasol? The same man who marvels about how ``our great fans'' have packed the building since the dynasty days, through unwatchable futility and horrendous management errors, can't use some of those revenues and reward those ``great fans'' with a better product?

        We've known Reinsdorf is a cheapskate, lowballing Luol Deng and Ben Gordon with embarrassing extension offers that set the tone for a demoralizing season. We've known him as a meddler, driving home the Ben Wallace deal because of his relationship with Wallace's agent, Arn Tellem, and watching Big Bum become one of the great busts in Chicago sports history. We've also known him to say he values his one World Series ring with the White Sox over the six NBA titles won for him by Michael Jordan, which suggests Reinsdorf should recuse himself from all basketball decisions and, for that matter, sell the franchise to someone who would grasp the value of the Jordan dynasty over a fluky baseball crown.

        But his latest blunder might be his worst. Remember, this is the guy who said during the '90s that he looked forward to Jordan's retirement so he could build his own dynasty. Ten years later, Reinsdorf's dynasty is a travesty. And how cool that the suburban Chicagoan who owns the Grizzlies, Michael Heisley, would be the one to rat him out after Gasol was traded in a blockbuster deal to the very appreciative Los Angeles Lakers.

        ``We had conversations with Chicago which were non-satisfactory. They didn't want to take on the luxury-tax situation and Los Angeles was,'' Heisley told the Memphis Commercial Appeal. ``In this league, if you're in a big-market area, you can afford to do those things. We negotiated as hard as we could for quality players, and (Chicago) refused to give up anybody within their core group. What they offered us were guys who play on the second and third team, so we turned them down.''

        Thank you, Mr. Heisley, for playing the role of messenger: Reinsdorf is a big-market owner who charges big-market prices, but won't make the big-market concession to pull off the big-market acquisition. Which makes him a small-thinking yo-yo in my book. Yours, too?

        ``I don't feel I need to comment on what another team's owner is saying about anything,'' said Reinsdorf's deputy and puppet, general manager John Paxson. ``I also would never make any statement about how another team should conduct their business.''

        Even if it is THE TRUTH.

        Do not make the mistake, as many local media people do, of blaming Paxson for all the problems. While he has contributed his share of screwups -- none bigger than the 2006 draft, when he wound up with disappointing Tyrus Thomas with LaMarcus Aldridge and Brandon Roy on his doorstep -- the biggest blunders have involved major pieces that the Bulls failed to acquire. Ultimately, that is Reinsdorf's department. The first thing I wrote last spring, after they were ousted from the playoffs, was that they needed a superstar/big ticket/go-to guy. Or, at the very least, a significant new part to accompany the current core. One by one, several such titans become available, which doesn't happen often in the NBA.

        The first was Kevin Garnett. Paxson made his pitch and failed, losing him to the Boston Celtics. The assumption has been that Minnesota liked Boston's offer, which included young Al Jefferson, better than Paxson's. But now that Reinsdorf's luxury-tax edict has leaked, it changes my perspective. Garnett's salary would have busted the tax threshold, so it's safe to assume Reinsdorf put the kibosh on that possible deal, too.

        Then came Kobe Bryant, an object of discussion between the Bulls and Lakers. Reinsdorf and Paxson say the deal wasn't close to happening. Bryant told me it was, that the Bulls were ``No. 1 with a bullet'' in late October. He was the most bitter player in the league back then, even telling a few goofs with a camcorder in a parking lot that he wanted to join the Bulls. But that trade never happened, either. And now the Bulls are dealing with double-jeopardy as Gasol settles down in L.A., where he makes the Lakers a title contender and Bryant a happy camper who isn't likely to leave as a free agent in 17 months.

        All through the NBA, trade activity is making huge headlines. The Bulls aren't involved and, thus, are dead as a compelling attraction because Reinsdorf won't spend more money and Paxson remains too enamored of his stumbling creation. Mad Pax is in denial if, as Heisley says, the Bulls were offering too many scraps to Memphis. Obviously, the Grizzlies weren't demanding much if they would accept an all-time stiff, Kwame Brown, in the Gasol deal. But Paxson can't make a deal if his boss is obsessed with luxury taxes.

        Even the oddball Wednesday trade that no one understands -- old, bloated, hip-addled Shaquille O'Neal joining the high-octane Suns for Shawn Marion -- at least represents an attempt to improve. In Phoenix, Steve Kerr may be following the road of Jordan, has former backcourt mate, as a dubious decision-maker, but he believes the Suns need a defensive presence inside and a different twist to compete with the Lakers and San Antonio. As for Miami, they're figuring Marion and Dwyane Wade might be fine springboard for a quick rebuilding plan. Count Marion as another who would have looked good in Chicago.

        ``I'm well aware that I'm on the line," Kerr said. ``That's my job. That's why I'm sitting in this seat. I'm comfortable with the decision. I think it gives us a better chance to win, and a better chance to win in the playoffs.''

        Give him props for trying. It's better than quitting.

        I would urge the Bulls to issue refunds to their fans. Otherwise, they might not have many left next year.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: IBJ: Pacers' troubles bad for city, too

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          Hey, I'm all for getting more "fans" to the games. And if they need to give some tickets away at reduced prices, that is fine by me, even free tickets on occasion. I was responding to Kemo and his desire for the Pacers just to give tickets away for free - seemed to me he was advocating giving away expensive tickets for free as a general rule.

          But if Saturday night I see someone new sitting next to me and I ask him where he got the ticket, and he says I got it free from the Pacers. OK, maybe one game to get him there for a game. But if he or someone else starts getting free tickets as a general rule, I lose all incentive to even buy season tickets next season.

          But if I were in charge of marketing/ticket sales, I would take care of season ticket holders first and I would never do anything that creates an incentive for them not to renew their tickets
          thats what I WAS talking about , lol sorry if you misunderstood.. I am saying for 1 or 2 HOME games.. give away tickets for FREE only for like i said 1 or 2 games... just to get people in the stands... draw some interest especially newcomers who have never been to an actual live game... , and get a crowd behind our guys.. and they WILL start winning.. Kinda hard to be pumped up and pull that lil somethin extra out of a player to win when we dont even have much of a home crowd behind them

          as far as the $100 tix prices i mentioned.. I went to see how much tix were in diff areas in the middle areas. .and all i seen were between $80 to around $94 .. so i just rounded up..lol

          as far as parking I honestly dont know what they charge NOW for parking to a game, but i went to a concert a few years ago, and it cost me between $15 and $20.. so my mistake for basing parking off of other events.. I just thought it would be the same to any event at Conseco...
          "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: IBJ: Pacers' troubles bad for city, too

            This is an interesting thread, especially if you can get past the unfocused statements about the legitimacy of the Journal. Here's the point. A major league team that's unattractive to fans and a failure on the court is bad for any city's image. See Knicks or Falcons. Moreover, as a business publication, it's looking at the MANAGEMENT issues. Well, esteemed bloggers, the Pacer front office is not getting it done. Not in terms of winning, not in terms of making an evening at Conseco something exciting and fun, and not in terms of image. My fear is the answer is the loss to the city of the franchise. Any new owner is going to want a clean slate. And a new owner is a real possibility given the age of the Simons. That's the story, folks. We aren't chasing Garnett or Shaq or Gasol. We're just trying to barely beat the Knicks. Whoop-T-Do.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: IBJ: Pacers' troubles bad for city, too

              I think the decision they have to make is:

              Are we gonna get the management to make this a competitive team?

              or

              Are we going to let our buddies stay in the front office, hoping familiar hypo-mediocrity (if G.W. can make words..so can I) will win over the fans?
              Last edited by Major Cold; 02-08-2008, 12:43 AM. Reason: so I am tired and I am keeping the new word

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: IBJ: Pacers' troubles bad for city, too

                Intridcold. Would you restate the second proposition in English, please?

                Comment

                Working...
                X