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

Stacy Paetz let go by FSI and the Pacers *update post 1*

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

  • Re: Stacy Paetz let go by FSI and the Pacers *update post 1*

    I respect the work that Ms. Paetz did on Pacers tv. I have no idea of here as a person other than she seemed like a nice person.

    However having said all of that I'm thinking of this from the Pacers & FSI's point of view.

    Unless a single person is going to come on here & say that they are going to stop watching Pacer games or even stop watching some Pacer games on tv because of this then whatever they save on the next contract (either hiring a cheaper person or not filling the role at all) was a great business move.

    Remember folks while we all feel pretty good about the end of the season the Indiana Pacers were dead last in attendance last season. That includes tickets discounted so cheaply that often times the Pacers paid fans to come to games.

    They have to trim the budget no matter what or where. Sadly for all of you and Ms. Paetz that included probably a six figure on air personality. But remember her contract is not the only thing they paid for. They paid for her travel, her lodging & I would almost bet that she probably got a per diem for meals. (I don't know that part but I'm guessing)

    I have nothing against her, she did fine. However at the end of the day her being there or not being there will not impact me watching the games.

    IMO, I think the Pacers should not fill the role. We don't need a sideline reporter & Denari can jump up from behind the table at the end of games to interview a player. It's Benners job to hold up the players and direct them to where they need to go to be interviewed anyway.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

    Comment


    • Re: Stacy Paetz let go by FSI and the Pacers *update post 1*

      ill say it but i didn't like her outside of being eye candy she was mediocre.
      Scott Hoke>Stacy Paetz by a long shot.

      i'll also start the bring back Scott Hoke campaign.
      We Want Scott

      Comment


      • Re: Stacy Paetz let go by FSI and the Pacers *update post 1*

        Nah, Paetz > Hoke. Not that Hoke was bad, but Stacy really came a long way from when she started. She always had the looks down. In regards to her actual sideline reporting, she seemed a little rocky at first, but over the years she really got better and was quite good in the last few years. She got more comfortable and it showed.
        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

        Comment


        • Re: Stacy Paetz let go by FSI and the Pacers *update post 1*

          her face annoyed me, she was a decent reporter tho
          STARBURY

          08 and Beyond

          Comment


          • Re: Stacy Paetz let go by FSI and the Pacers *update post 1*

            Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
            thats funny but not appropriate for this thread
            What, a guy can't comment on pretty hair?


            Name-calling signature removed

            Comment


            • Re: Stacy Paetz let go by FSI and the Pacers *update post 1*

              Paetz did a fine job and it sucks to see someone lose their job, but I will not lose sleep over this. Nobody is really going to stop watching Pacers game because of her firing like Peck said.

              You got to trim the budget some where when you are dead less in attendance.

              I'm sure she will land on here feet and find another job somewhere.

              Comment


              • Re: Stacy Paetz let go by FSI and the Pacers *update post 1*

                Aww, that sucks. I've grown fond of her over the years.

                Way more than Chris Danari.
                Removed link to my website after a PM from Able.

                Comment


                • Re: Stacy Paetz let go by FSI and the Pacers *update post 1*

                  Originally posted by Peck View Post
                  However having said all of that I'm thinking of this from the Pacers & FSI's point of view....Unless a single person is going to come on here & say that they are going to stop watching Pacer games or even stop watching some Pacer games on tv because of this then whatever they save on the next contract (either hiring a cheaper person or not filling the role at all) was a great business move.... Pacers were dead last in attendance last season. That includes tickets discounted so cheaply that often times the Pacers paid fans to come to games...They have to trim the budget no matter what or where. Sadly for all of you and Ms. Paetz that included probably a six figure on air personality. But remember her contract is not the only thing they paid for. They paid for her travel, her lodging & I would almost bet that she probably got a per diem for meals. (I don't know that part but I'm guessing)...at the end of the day her being there or not being there will not impact me watching the games...IMO, I think the Pacers should not fill the role. We don't need a sideline reporter.
                  You raise some good points and I agree with some of your opinions, but I disagree with some others. I agree that people would watch the telecasts without her; heck, they'd watch even if a trained monkey were doing sideline reporting AND play by play for that matter. If you don't go to the game, or have NBAtv and wish to see it, FSI is usually the only other option.

                  As for saving on the contract being a great business move, I disagree, as the savings would not be that great IF they hire someone else. She probably did get a six figure salary, but I'd bet she got the going rate, at best, and someone new coming in would get the rookie sideline going rate; it's not like we are comparing a rookie player's salary to Kobe's salary here. And in the context of all of the money that the team pays out each year, the difference is going to be a drop in the bucket. Plus, it is hard, as I see it, to argue for firing someone especially when the ratings have been improving! Improved ratings means you can charge more for advertising. More ads mean more revenue, so it's in the team's best interest to keep a good broadcasting team together. And the Pacers have merely been doing what other teams were doing by having a sideline reporter for their telecasts anyway; it's not like they've been trendsetters.

                  I am not privy to the spending patterns of the other teams in many areas, including their broadcast teams, but I can compare them in other ways that I am knowledgeable in, and they tend to be very frugal. I thought Stacey was very good; she thought pretty well on her feet, and many people having the gripe that she always interviewed the other team's hero after a loss was almost for certain a decision that was not hers to make. I liked her pieces with the players during pregame and halftime. She also worked tirelessly for good causes around the city. So she will be missed in many ways when she goes on to greener pastures, which I believe she will.
                  Last edited by joeyd; 06-04-2011, 03:49 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Stacy Paetz let go by FSI and the Pacers *update post 1*

                    In all honesty, has ANY sideline reporter ever done anything more than ask the same canned questions and got the same canned answers ?? It's not like there's ever anything earth-shattering said in those interviews.

                    "Danny, what was the key to the game ??"

                    "Well, we hit our shots and they didn't."

                    BRILLIANT !!

                    I rarely watched anything before tip-off or past the final buzzer. Most of these players are pretty bad at interviews anyway.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Stacy Paetz let go by FSI and the Pacers *update post 1*

                      Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                      In all honesty, has ANY sideline reporter ever done anything more than ask the same canned questions and got the same canned answers ?? It's not like there's ever anything earth-shattering said in those interviews.

                      "Danny, what was the key to the game ??"

                      "Well, we hit our shots and they didn't."

                      BRILLIANT !!

                      I rarely watched anything before tip-off or past the final buzzer. Most of these players are pretty bad at interviews anyway.
                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJtVE...eature=related


                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajcY_MJHLng


                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY7xAF4XKS4 LOL

                      Comment


                      • Re: Stacy Paetz let go by FSI and the Pacers *update post 1*

                        I'm happy that we will be getting someone else (I never liked her), but sad that she had to lose her job. This isn't the best time to be looking for a job..

                        Comment


                        • Re: Stacy Paetz let go by FSI and the Pacers *update post 1*

                          As I said ......................

                          Comment


                          • Re: Stacy Paetz let go by FSI and the Pacers *update post 1*

                            Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                            As I said ......................
                            Yes I agree the only way you get anything is if the player is gonna give it. A great sideline reporter doesn't do anything really just ask questions that no one really cares about IMO.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Stacy Paetz let go by FSI and the Pacers *update post 1*

                              Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                              A great sideline reporter doesn't do anything really just ask questions that no one really cares about IMO.
                              what does a not-great sideline reporter do?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Stacy Paetz let go by FSI and the Pacers *update post 1*

                                Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                                what does a not-great sideline reporter do?
                                same thing but an on air personalty is different. Stacy was a on air personality and a sideline reporter. Guys like Craig Sager and Jim Gray are normally just sideline reporting they don't do the pre game show or the post game show.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X