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

Netflix and Warner Bros. Strikes deal! Must wait 28 days for new releases

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

  • #31
    Re: Netflix and Warner Bros. Strikes deal! Must wait 28 days for new releases

    Originally posted by Pacersfan46 View Post
    Actually I think we've seen that this is quite the opposite. I'm not sure how old you are, but when the Napster craze first hit, the industries reaction was certainly not to lower prices.

    -- Steve --
    Yeah, it was to sue the crap out of the consumer. They want their cake and eat it too.

    It needs to be a sustained action, not just a phase.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Netflix and Warner Bros. Strikes deal! Must wait 28 days for new releases

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      Yeah, it was to sue the crap out of the consumer. They want their cake and eat it too.

      It needs to be a sustained action, not just a phase.
      Actually they dropped the prices when they started taking legal action. They however raised the prices before they went to the legal process.

      I don't think they have any interest in lowering the prices because of downloading. I can't fault the logic either. Anyone downloading, will probably continue to download things no matter what they charge. So they see those people as lost causes, because everything is more expensive than free. So they will continue to raise prices to gouge those who don't download even harder.

      Look at record sales as a whole from the 70's, 80's, and on. I haven't seen the numbers myself, but I'd be willing to bet this has been anything but a phase. Yet prices don't go down.

      -- Steve --

      **EDIT** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...bums_worldwide

      Keep in mind, Napster started in 1999.

      11 albums have sold over 40 million copies. The most recent was 1999. The Backstreet Boys (LOL).

      29 albums have sold over 30 million copies. Only one was beyond 1999. The Beatles in 2000.

      70 albums have sold over 20 million copies. Of those 70, only 5 of them were beyond the year 2000. The most recent is 2004. One in 2002. One in 2001. Two in 2000. Nothing since 2004.

      ***Edit #2***

      List of bums, worldwide. Way to shorten that link! I swear I didn't do that, that was the message boards doing.
      Last edited by Pacersfan46; 01-11-2010, 02:47 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Netflix and Warner Bros. Strikes deal! Must wait 28 days for new releases

        I take it those albums include Itunes albums and likewise..
        Ya Think Ya Used Enough Dynamite there Butch...

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Netflix and Warner Bros. Strikes deal! Must wait 28 days for new releases

          Originally posted by Pacersfan46 View Post
          Keep in mind, Napster started in 1999.

          11 albums have sold over 40 million copies. The most recent was 1999. The Backstreet Boys (LOL).

          29 albums have sold over 30 million copies. Only one was beyond 1999. The Beatles in 2000.

          70 albums have sold over 20 million copies. Of those 70, only 5 of them were beyond the year 2000. The most recent is 2004. One in 2002. One in 2001. Two in 2000. Nothing since 2004.
          Multiple reasons for this.

          One is downloading, sure. But it's not the only one.

          A second one is what GO! is alluding to. With songs being sold individually, the album is dead. In 2000, you frequently bought the album for the sake of 1 or 2 songs that you liked. Today, you go on iTunes and spend a couple of dollars.

          But an even bigger reason is the balkanization of the music scene. Check out your "genre" labels in iTunes... you'd have to explain more than half of them to your parents. It used to be that there were a lot fewer musicians playing a lot more of a similar style than today. Heck, pick a year since 2000 and tell us what the signature album of the year was... the album that everybody, no matter their taste in music, was sure to buy. You won't find one. Some of it's the influence of the Indie scene, some of it's the international stuff creeping in, some of it's democratization of publication due to the falling cost of recording... it doesn't matter.

          The bottom line is that more NEW music is getting sold now than ever before. The falling CD sales are largely due to the fact that people we re-buying their old stuff. More new albums are being produced, which makes it harder to have the definitive album that everyone must buy.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Netflix and Warner Bros. Strikes deal! Must wait 28 days for new releases

            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
            A second one is what GO! is alluding to. With songs being sold individually, the album is dead. In 2000, you frequently bought the album for the sake of 1 or 2 songs that you liked. Today, you go on iTunes and spend a couple of dollars.
            This is basically like in store sales of "singles" that now no longer exist. I'd call that close to a wash.

            I don't think there ever is "an album that everyone regardless of taste", will buy. It's much easier to coin a definitive album of the year as time goes on, because you can see which albums stood the test of time and are still valued.

            Also, I think your idea of "more varied music and artist" logic goes out the window with album sales as a whole being down. Not only is there not any albums sniffing the numbers of albums I mentioned, but as a whole album sales are down. If the problem was more varied music and artists, that wouldn't mean CD sales as a whole would drop. It would just mean the money being spent is being distributed differently and more evenly across those extra artists and genres.

            The money just isn't being spent as much anymore, not just a change in how/where it's spent. That points to downloading much more than it does the other options you presented.

            -- Steve --

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Netflix and Warner Bros. Strikes deal! Must wait 28 days for new releases

              This whole thing with Netflix really is bs. I'm not extremely upset about it, but I share the feelings with others that when I pay for this luxury under one pretense and then later I am receiving less for equal value then I have a bit of a problem with it. Perhaps Netflix needs to discount their plans a few dollars.
              "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Netflix and Warner Bros. Strikes deal! Must wait 28 days for new releases

                I guess I wonder if this isn't in some way some companies looking out for Blockbuster, because Blockbuster accounts for a lot of DVD sales for them. Maybe? Did they threaten or hint at not allowing Netflix to use their movies at all during these negotiations?

                It is kind of odd that Netflix would agree to this without WB threatening to allow their movies exclusive use to someone else if Netflix didn't cooperate. I dunno.

                -- Steve --

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Netflix and Warner Bros. Strikes deal! Must wait 28 days for new releases

                  Originally posted by Pacersfan46 View Post
                  I guess I wonder if this isn't in some way some companies looking out for Blockbuster, because Blockbuster accounts for a lot of DVD sales for them. Maybe? Did they threaten or hint at not allowing Netflix to use their movies at all during these negotiations?

                  It is kind of odd that Netflix would agree to this without WB threatening to allow their movies exclusive use to someone else if Netflix didn't cooperate. I dunno.

                  -- Steve --
                  I actually just read an article that addressed this (kind of)

                  http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/07/c...ies/index.html


                  Netflix subscribers who stream films over the Web will soon be getting access to a greater number of movies from Warner Bros.

                  In a groundbreaking deal for online movie rentals, Netflix and Warner Bros. Home Entertainment announced Wednesday that they have expanded their licensing arrangement for streaming movies, and Netflix now has licensing rights to more of the studio's catalog content.


                  In exchange, Netflix agreed to do something it has never done before. The movie-by-mail service won't offer new releases from the studio on DVD or Blu-ray discs until 28 days after they go on sale.


                  Before you new-movie fans go berserk, listen to what the deal means for the studio and the Web's No. 1 film-rental service. Let's start with Netflix.
                  Netflix needs content for the company's streaming service and must obtain that content in a difficult market.


                  CEO Reed Hastings has proved he can obtain plenty of physical film discs, even when the studios have tried to stop him. But to stream movies, Netflix needs licensing rights and those are much tougher to come by than discs.


                  With the Warner Bros. contract, Hastings has obtained those rights from one of the major Hollywood film studios. In addition, Warner Bros. has promised to provide Netflix with a greater number of DVD and Blu-ray discs to rent once the "sales-only" period for a film runs out.


                  "We're able to help an important business partner meet its objectives while improving service levels for our members by acquiring substantially more units...after a relatively short sell-through window," said Ted Sarandos, chief content officer at Netflix.


                  "At the same time, we're able to extend the range of choices available to be streamed to our members."


                  Not everybody is buying the idea. On Wednesday afternoon, Twitter was awash in complaints about the 28-day waiting period. The naysayers may want to consider, however, that to secure content for its streaming service, which is undoubtedly the company's future, Netflix is going to have to either pay through the nose or find some other way to compensate the studios.


                  Netflix is in the precarious position of having to negotiate for content with companies that have at varying times distrusted Netflix's business model or were openly hostile towards it.


                  Here's the starting point: The studios would much rather sell consumers a DVD than rent them one. Profit margins on a movie sale are higher than on a rental.


                  In the past, when the studios tried to stop Netflix from obtaining content, the company has frustrated them by acquiring discs from other retailers. Then there was Netflix's deal with cable movie channel Starz. Instead of obtaining the streaming rights from the studios,' Netflix found what some studio execs consider a backdoor route to those movies. That didn't

                  endear Hastings to them.


                  Then there's the competition. With almost everybody in film distribution charging to the Web, including cable and video-on-demand services that pay huge fees to obtain movie rights, the studios have plenty of people willing to compensate them for Internet rights. Hollywood isn't just going to give those rights away.


                  Netflix would unlikely be unable to pay the studios what they want for those rights continue to offer customers all-you-can-eat movie viewing for $9 a month.


                  This might be why Hastings dispatched Sarandos to Hollywood recently to sell the sales-only plan to studio chiefs.


                  For Hastings, it comes down to either helping the studios protect a sales-only window and forcing a 28-day waiting period for new releases--which only makes up about 30 percent of Netflix's business--or raising subscription fees. Which would you choose?


                  If you believe the Web is Netflix's future, it's an easy pick.


                  Jan Saxton, an analyst with Adams Media Research, called the deal "brilliant."


                  For Warner Bros., the deal could be a watershed moment if the studio can convince other services to respect a similar sales-only window. DVD sales are in decline and the studios are determined to try to preserve them. Saxton said that by striking this unprecedented deal with Netflix, Warner is proving that it is willing to experiment.


                  "What the studios are learning is that in the recession, as consumers are watching their dollars and the bargain for a single viewing is a better than buying," Saxton said. "It sounds like Warner has found a way to support sales while also supporting rental."


                  Saxton added that the agreement continues Netflix's long history of using technology and innovation to grow its business. First came the automated sorting machines to build the breakthrough mail-order business.


                  Then came the hardware deals with set-top makers, such as Roku, LG, and Microsoft that enabled viewers to watch Netflix's streaming video on their TV sets, which Saxton says was crucial.


                  "Netflix's management have proved to be extremely nimble and able," Saxton said. "Their leadership has been brilliant at adapting technology and using it to create the right approach for the market."

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Netflix and Warner Bros. Strikes deal! Must wait 28 days for new releases

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    Which costs about 15cents to produce. The rest of the money lines the pockets of the studio and the artist.
                    Your point about pricing is valid, but the above is not true in any scenario. It always depends on the packaging, but I've never seen the manu. cost of a major label CD dip below $1.50 and never under $2 for a DVD. They're usually higher, even for runs of 50-100k.

                    Originally posted by Since86
                    If all of us got that content from outside sources, and they started taking a hit in the pocket, we would see a decline in CD/DVD prices to a more realistic level.
                    It's already happened. Go around and look at your local stores or online. Some (if not most) tv sets are being sold well below profit.

                    Originally posted by Anthem
                    Multiple reasons for this.

                    One is downloading, sure. But it's not the only one.

                    A second one is what GO! is alluding to. With songs being sold individually, the album is dead. In 2000, you frequently bought the album for the sake of 1 or 2 songs that you liked. Today, you go on iTunes and spend a couple of dollars.
                    Heading that direction, but not quite there. As of Monday, digital sales account for 25.9% of all album sales. Individual track downloads account for around 23.6% of all music sales, so still heavily driven by physical sales.



                    In any scenario, the decline of the music biz should be teaching studios how NOT to treat its customers. Instead, they're happy to repeat it, rather than embrace the changes that will inevitably happen. It's too bad.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Netflix and Warner Bros. Strikes deal! Must wait 28 days for new releases

                      The other thing that is beginning to bother me is that I have been a netflix customer for nearly a year, yet I have to read about this here on PD. Why was I not notified directly by netflix?
                      "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Netflix and Warner Bros. Strikes deal! Must wait 28 days for new releases

                        I can only guess that since New Releases are a third of their business and that you've had to wait for months on a new release anyway it wouldn't be that big of a deal... not worthy of an announcement.

                        If the backlash is significant (more than Tweeting and Forum chatter) perhaps they will be willing to renegotiate the agreement or lower subscription costs.

                        Are any of you canceling or downgrading your accounts?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Netflix and Warner Bros. Strikes deal! Must wait 28 days for new releases

                          Originally posted by The Toxic Avenger View Post
                          I can only guess that since New Releases are a third of their business and that you've had to wait for months on a new release anyway it wouldn't be that big of a deal... not worthy of an announcement.

                          If the backlash is significant (more than Tweeting and Forum chatter) perhaps they will be willing to renegotiate the agreement or lower subscription costs.

                          Are any of you canceling or downgrading your accounts?
                          I have thought about it, but I doubt I end up doing it. What is the use when any other service you may switch to will probably end up going the same route eventually. At this point I am more upset with Netflix's inability to notify it's customers of a change like this than I am the change itself.
                          "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X