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

A couple questions for the old timers

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

  • #31
    Re: A couple questions for the old timers

    One other thing I forgot to mention: just about every franchise in league history has been in a hole like we're facing today.

    Look at Boston a few years ago. Look at LA after Showtime beore Bryant and Shaq. Philadelphia absolutely stunk pre-Erving and after he left. San Antonio went through a rut pre-Robinson. The Suns had a major drug scandal on their hands in the 80s. They were lucky to have a nice core of players that survived (Nance, Adams, KJ later) that tided them over until the Barkley years. The Bulls were pathetic pre-Jordan and many years after him. They're not much better than us right now. Everyone can't be .500 or better all the time, and every team has its issues with drugs/thugs/off court issues from time to time.
    Last edited by ChicagoPacer; 03-10-2008, 02:07 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: A couple questions for the old timers

      How bad were the 80's really? How about DW TWICE hiring George Irvine to coach the team.







      and to think, people called me out for my "Welcome to the 80's" comment a couple of years ago.
      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: A couple questions for the old timers

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        You are so young. Living through 4 straight seasons in the early 80's of between 20 and 26 wins will toughen any fan. And when you average less than 4000 (paid) fans per game - yes things were much worse back then.

        But it was also a different era - the NBA in the early 80's is nothing like it is today - back then there was real talk about the league as a whole not surviving.

        It was worse back then. I don't remember any young players that gave us much hope back then - not until Chuch Person. Oh sure Wayma Tsdale came in with a ton of hype - but it became very clear that he was not that good

        Telethon just to save the team - strong rumors about the team leaving - in fact it was all but a done deal for the team to move to San Diego. Curtains drawn in the upper reaches of MSA.
        The local media back then either ridiculed or simply ignored the Pacers.

        No it was worse back then.

        get back with me on this question in about 4 years if things are still as they are currently - then maybe we can consider this for real
        You know, I look at this question totally differently.

        Back then, things were bad for the franchise, but I was totally behind the team. AND, with the cost of getting into the NBA ($3.2M - big bucks back then and loss of 1st round draft choices) and the fact that we were not yet able to recover from losing McGinnis to NBA/Philly, it was almost expected that the Pacers would struggle entering the NBA.

        It didn't take us long before our record began struggling. But EVERYONE was on the same page and we were all behind the team.

        Now... we are fragmented as hell. Fan against fan, fans dislike many of the players, players causing problems. This era of Pacer bball is much tougher on me than at any other time of their existance....by far.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: A couple questions for the old timers

          In the 80s I remember hoping upon hope that we could somehow get to 0.500 and make the playoffs.

          While the team was bad, way worse for a whole lot longer than now, it had been bad for so long that any small stretch of good play seemed encouraging, seemed to justify the whole idea that we BELONGED in the NBA.

          So I think Grace nailed it when she mentioned that it feels worse for having been spolied by the successes of the Reggie era.

          Why didn't the ABA success spoil the chance to be maximally miserable in the 80s? I'm not sure. The cost of joining the league, ownership changes, and mismanagement just killed the team but didn't kill hope. Maybe because as Peck pointed out the players themselves were never unlikeable.

          I was a young kid in 1970-1972, so maybe I put the glory days behind me fast and even 10 years later could be happy or at least excited by a good effort by likeable players.

          Even now I could get excited by sustained good effort by likeable players, even if 0.500 was the best we could achieve based upon talent.
          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: A couple questions for the old timers

            Originally posted by pacertom View Post
            Why didn't the ABA success spoil the chance to be maximally miserable in the 80s? I'm not sure. The cost of joining the league, ownership changes, and mismanagement just killed the team but didn't kill hope. Maybe because as Peck pointed out the players themselves were never unlikeable.

            I was a young kid in 1970-1972, so maybe I put the glory days behind me fast and even 10 years later could be happy or at least excited by a good effort by likeable players.

            Even now I could get excited by sustained good effort by likeable players, even if 0.500 was the best we could achieve based upon talent.
            This whole idea of the players being likeable back then vs unlikeable today is bothering me a little. I can't speak for individual fans - but Herb Williams was treated probably worse than any Pacer ever by the fans. Worse than Stephen Jackson, worse than Artest, worse than Tinsley. He was often booed everytime he touched the ball. He was ridiculed for being a non-caring pro basketball player who never played hard. - I was a little young to really know any different, so I sort of followed along. Also remember Rik Smits was booed for most of his first 3 or 4 seasons.

            Also don't forget how Donnie Walsh was booed every draft pick - that was one reason why the stopped having the draft parties.

            So there was a lot of hatred for the pacers back then.

            You could argue, "well at least the players of the late 70's and through the mid 80's never caused any off the court problems" OK - but the media covers things differently today - I'm sure there were things that happened that the Pacers organization was able to keep underwraps (I heard some prety strong rumors about several of the players especially prior to 1983 (drug use, alcolhol abuse, domestic abuse.... that sort of thing) back then the media didn't report the off the court stuff.

            But lets just look at the pure length of time between playoff success. Besides not making the playoffs except for 1981 and 1987, the pacers never won an NBA playoff series until 1994 - by that time I had followed the pacers for about 18 years - and not one playoff series win. For some of you younsters who just started following the Pacers two or three years ago, lets see if the Pacers don't win another series for 15 years - see how that grabs you.

            really the idea of winning a playoff series was very foreign to me. beating the magic in 1994 felt like a championship. getting to the ECF in 1994 was like a dream - and not a very real dream.
            Last edited by Unclebuck; 03-10-2008, 02:49 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: A couple questions for the old timers

              Originally posted by pacertom View Post
              In the 80s I remember hoping upon hope that we could somehow get to 0.500 and make the playoffs.

              While the team was bad, way worse for a whole lot longer than now, it had been bad for so long that any small stretch of good play seemed encouraging, seemed to justify the whole idea that we BELONGED in the NBA.

              So I think Grace nailed it when she mentioned that it feels worse for having been spolied by the successes of the Reggie era.

              Why didn't the ABA success spoil the chance to be maximally miserable in the 80s? I'm not sure. The cost of joining the league, ownership changes, and mismanagement just killed the team but didn't kill hope. Maybe because as Peck pointed out the players themselves were never unlikeable.

              I was a young kid in 1970-1972, so maybe I put the glory days behind me fast and even 10 years later could be happy or at least excited by a good effort by likeable players.

              Even now I could get excited by sustained good effort by likeable players, even if 0.500 was the best we could achieve based upon talent.
              A couple of the other things to add to your list concerning the Pacers being merged into the NBA was the four ABA teams did not get to share in TV revenue for - I think - 5 years. I know it's not like now but in those days anything helped the bottom line. Plus, we had to start paying the St. Louis group right away which we still do to this day.
              The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: A couple questions for the old timers

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                beating the magic in 1994 felt like a championship. getting to the ECF in 1994 was like a dream - and not a very real dream.
                The essence of Indiana HS Basketball pre-class system tourney.
                Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: A couple questions for the old timers

                  Originally posted by ABADays View Post
                  A couple of the other things to add to your list concerning the Pacers being merged into the NBA was the four ABA teams did not get to share in TV revenue for - I think - 5 years. I know it's not like now but in those days anything helped the bottom line. Plus, we had to start paying the St. Louis group right away which we still do to this day.
                  Its the greatest business deal ever made.


                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: A couple questions for the old timers

                    Uncle Buck

                    Some of that booing that was going on was becaus of the college those players attended.

                    I remember Jerry Sichting getting boo'd during intros simply because he went to Purdue.

                    Bird always got a big hand.

                    Some of it also had to do with a large part of the fans attending the Pacers game were actually IU fans.

                    They hated any Big Ten player that didn't go to IU, double that for Purdue players.

                    It didn't help that IU was winning, Knight was a God & the Pacers were horrid.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: A couple questions for the old timers

                      I remember the concerts after the games. The place was empty before halftime. Most people showed up around the third quarter to scout out their seats for the concert.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: A couple questions for the old timers

                        In the 80's, those teams (and the franchise) had nothing to lose. Once the telethon happened and new ownership came in there was even a light at the end of the tunnel. Management had a clean slate to do whatever needed to be done. There was no reason to argue about going half way, or wondering if the team would rebuild, retool, or 'rebuild on the fly'. They didn't and couldn't maintain the status quo, it was all about improving. It was slow and there were setbacks, but we weren't paralyzed by the fear of losing ground in order to 'stay competitive'.
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X