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

Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

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

  • #31
    Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

    I'm the side of whatever makes the Pacers more competitive.

    That said, some specific thoughts:

    On the subject of contracts, shorter is probably better. I don't think we need non-guaranteed contracts, but I am curious about either:

    1) Partially-guaranteed contracts. Either more powerful team options that currently exist on player contracts, or perhaps a scenario where X% is guaranteed, but if the player is cut, Y% is not guaranteed.

    2) Guaranteed contracts, but with team options to get those numbers off of their cap. I'm not exactly sure how this would work, but the general idea is to give teams some kind of a weapon for when players under-perform to the point of being a team detriment, and what would happen is the player keeps his money, but the team is allowed to move on from said player without being in salary cap hell. I'm not sure if this would mean the team still pays the contract, but it can be removed from their cap total, or perhaps the opposite where it still does, but the NBA has to pay the money instead of the team. Something, somehow to give a team relief when a player 'goes Eddy Curry' on them.

    Speaking of the salary cap, I'm fine with a hard cap in theory, though I'm not sure it's necessary. I still wonder about multiplying the existing luxury tax instead to $2 or $3 for every dollar you go over the tax line. Make big spenders think again about going over, and then if they still choose to do so, a lot more money falls into the pockets of financially responsible teams.

    Back to my initial point, I just want a CBA that makes it more of an even competition between the Indiana's and Minnesota's of the NBA and the Los Angles's and Boston's of the NBA.

    I don't care how well-run your franchise is, there's probably a big market that runs their franchise just as well, and they'll still have an edge on you when it comes to attracting major talent if all other things are equal.

    Maybe since we'll likely have to just concede that big stars will bolt small markets to team up on a beach somewhere (or a Boston, New York scenario), perhaps the NBA needs to bring back compensations. When LeBron leaves Cleveland, give CLE some additional draft picks or something.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      I'm the side of whatever makes the Pacers more competitive.
      I think improved revenue sharing is the single biggest factor that could reduce the imbalance between big and small markets. Granted, it still won't make Indy the equivalent of NY or LA though.

      I'm not in favor of any sort of amnesty for bad contracts. IMO it just encourages profligate spending by the big market teams. Eddy Curry should not be held up as an example of owners being screwed by the system. Most people thought he was a bad contract waiting to happen when Zeke signed him to that deal.

      I'm not in favor of a hard cap. IMO the ability to overpay is what keeps small market teams competitive. I'm fine though with increasing the luxury tax penalty. At least it gives the option for small market teams to spend if they really need to - for example, going over the lux tax allowed Utah to keep Milsap last year.

      The idea of compensation has some merit, but it's a tricky business. For example, should the Pacers compensate Atlanta for signing away Solo? Or Denver for Dahntay? Who sets the price for compensation? Should it be a first round pick? Second round pick? Miami signed a whole bunch of free agents this year, not only LeBron and Bosh but also guys like Ilgauskaus, Juwan Howard, Dampier, etc. If they have to compensate for all those guys with picks, they'd be out of picks until some time in the next decade.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

        Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
        Remember, most of the money the owners make is made from TV revenue not the gate. Granted, we are fans of a team that doesn't fit the profile, so our view of league business is going to be skewed to that. I've come to find out most NBA fans, not Pacer fans are wanting these super teams. Believe it or not, there are a lot of these NBA fans that are right here in Indy... A lot of them share my demographic and they could care less about the Pacers as long as LeBron, Kobe, Amar'e, CP3, KG & Paul Pierce are on TV from week to week.
        I agree with most of your post. I was wondering if you travel much. The reason I ask is that I do travel a lot and part of your statement just isn't accurate from the feedback that I've received.

        The NBA fans that I have come across do support super teams, as long as their beloved team is among them. If not, they do not want them any more than we fans do here in Indianapolis. In other words, the avid fan doesn't really care how the league enables teams to be stacked, as long as they are stacked in their favor. If that can't be done, the folks I've talked to don't want anyone else having anything that they don't have.

        I travel to Miami and the South Beach area a lot, and the folks down there were all about Wade. But man did they b!tch once Boston was able to manipulate Minnesota into giving up Garnett. Once Boston picked up a couple more excellent players, you would have thought the sky was falling. They didn't even think it was fair to stack a team without player collusion. And you don't even want them to get started about LA. Of course they think everything is great now, because they now have one of the stacked teams.

        As for TV revenue, I believe that viewers have their favorite teams and they many, maybe even most, become bandwagon fans of a particular player or players. Viewers will watch what is available, even if the team they back has only their favorite player as its only star. I will admit that when I flip channels across multiple games on at the same time, I usually watch the games that involve a pair of good teams. But I will watch a game between two equally matched teams before I will waste my time watching a game between one great team versus a lousy team. My thought is that the closer to parity the league would get, the more each team, not just the better teams or big market teams, would be watched.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

          Of course when it comes to an actual fan of a team they don't want to see other super teams. But if you look at the casual NBA fan that doesn't have a real allegiance to a team, they love the super teams. They love being able to see LeBron, Wade and Bosh take on Pierce, KG, Allen and Rondo in one game. And you can't blame them because it's highly entertaining.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

            It isn't that i want to get rid of super teams (they are awesome), I just want the Pacers to have an equal chance getting one as the other large markets.
            PG24: "Don't tell me the sky is the limit when there are footprints on the moon!"

            RT @Hoya2aPacer "When I play this game I love. I play to make my teammates better. But I'm a mouther****er on defense."

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

              Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
              But if you look at the casual NBA fan that doesn't have a real allegiance to a team,.
              The number of people like that are so small compared to the number that have allegiances that they shouldn't matter.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

                I don't quite understand the idea of compromise between owners and players. No player loses money but a number of owners , more than half, are losing money. The Simons have stated they lose money each year. Are they incompetent owners, hire incompetent FO people or are they victims of a poor system? Would any other owner do better in Indy?

                What does compromise mean-losing less money each year than now-for example losing 10 instead of 20M.

                The only fair system that works requires everyone to be profitable or no one. When labor bleeds management or when management bleeds labor we have a unsustainable system.
                Last edited by speakout4; 02-21-2011, 08:10 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

                  I'm on the fans side, but I'm not against the players or owners unless one of those groups mistreats the fans.

                  So let them negotiate whatever they can. This is America for goodness sakes. If the players want to organize, let them. If the owners want to do the same thing, let them. But while negotiating...they best be taking into account the fans or they may very well lose support. Basketball isn't America's past-time and it's not NFL football. It will survive of course, but there could be serious damage. Major league baseball did not easily recover after the strike in the early 90's. Peak attendance hit 70 million in 1993 and went to 50 the next two years. It didn't hit 71 until 2000. That type of lull in the NBA may wipe out several franchises...

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    I'm on the fans side, but I'm not against the players or owners unless one of those groups mistreats the fans.

                    So let them negotiate whatever they can. This is America for goodness sakes. If the players want to organize, let them. If the owners want to do the same thing, let them. But while negotiating...they best be taking into account the fans or they may very well lose support. Basketball isn't America's past-time and it's not NFL football. It will survive of course, but there could be serious damage. Major league baseball did not easily recover after the strike in the early 90's. Peak attendance hit 70 million in 1993 and went to 50 the next two years. It didn't hit 71 until 2000. That type of lull in the NBA may wipe out several franchises...
                    Sorry but fans don't have a union or anyone to negotiate their interests. The only thing fans can do is to side with the less greedy side if that side exists.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

                      Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                      I don't believe that the majority of the owners in the league are hurting financially nearly as badly as they are leading people to believe.
                      The Simons are worth billions and while I have not recently done the math, I believe it would take them hundreds of years to spend their fortune losing money on the Pacers. That said, where is it our place to tell them how to run their business or invest their money?

                      Why don't you (rhetorically of course) buy the Pacers and run it differently? What I'm saying here is that the Simons (or any owners for that matter) don't owe the fans or the city anything. This is a business, pure and simple. If they don't treat the fans (i.e. customers) properly, the fans should simply walk away.

                      The same goes for the players. While the owners probably have skills that are transferable to running other businesses, the players should feel very fortunate to make great money playing a sport...something most of us would do for free. 90% of the players in the league would probably make a tiny fraction of that money doing any other job available...so they best be taking care of the fans. Yet, it's their choice. They can strike and I support their right to do it. It doesn't mean I won't walk away as a fan, because I did that with major league baseball nearly 2 decades ago.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

                        Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                        Sorry but fans don't have a union or anyone to negotiate their interests. The only thing fans can do is to side with the less greedy side if that side exists.
                        Nope. The fans can walk away and find another interest. There are far more interests in this world than there are National Basketball Associations. They have a great product, but it's not necessary.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

                          the negotiation/lockout are a normal part of the employee/employer negotiating process. it is not something to get all bent out of shape about.

                          after the process is over, things will get back to the new normal and hopefully the pacers will have an opportunity to get some good players for cheap.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Nope. The fans can walk away and find another interest. There are far more interests in this world than there are National Basketball Associations. They have a great product, but it's not necessary.
                            They can but they don't!!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

                              Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                              They can but they don't!!
                              I would hate to see it, but it already happened in MLB.

                              I have a little news for you. I am not alone saying this...but I am a bigger NBA fan in large part because I abandoned MLB after the strike in the early 90's. Did it hurt? Sure, but it hurt more when I followed my team (Reds) through many more (much longer) games than we see in the NBA, only to watch the league shut down. The Reds were in 1st place, headed for the world series. You can do that to some fans, but not all of them. Literally 30% of them moved on. The lost advertising revenue by itself had to be astounding.

                              So, in 1994 their attendance literally dropped 30% the next year and stayed at that level for a second year....and honestly, I don't think the league has ever fully recovered. They lost a large percentage of an entire generation of fans. The NBA will pay similarly if this gets really nasty. The NBA in particular cannot afford it because the well known players like Lebron and Kobe are simply not as popular as past stars like MJ and Bird/Magic. BTW, if you doubt that, have you tried a McJordan burger or watched Space Jam? The players donning uniforms these days hardly have the charisma and are in fact not that well liked by the masses...
                              Last edited by BlueNGold; 02-21-2011, 10:02 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

                                The NBA absolutely has to be more competitive. The current fans who like the super teams may not demand it, but I guarantee you there are tons of people who don't like the NBA now that would be fans if there was more parity. I love how there are posters who say, well, the ratings are better than ever, yet the owners are still losing money and the majority of arenas are pretty empty and also lacking in enthusiasm. Level the playing field and make the NBA competitive and the league will become popular to an unprecedented extent. The NFL now is more popular than the NBA was during the MJ years. I'm not saying the NBA will get that popular, but its popularity will increase.

                                Sure, the league won't fold if you keep the current structure in place, far from it. But the lack of parity currently in place ensures a fan base full of lame hanger on fan boys and repels the majority of people in this country who actually like competitive sports and parity.

                                I mean, hell, I haven't watched the first or second round of a playoff series since the Pacers were making the playoffs. The outcome is more or less predetermined.

                                And I think this can be done in a way that doesn't hurt the players much at all. I'm also sure there are sacrifices the owners need to make.
                                Last edited by idioteque; 02-21-2011, 10:34 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X