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

Feds seize 10 sites for sports streaming

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

  • #31
    Re: Feds seize 10 sites for sports streaming

    Who decides what is a reasonable price, though? What's the consensus price?

    Back to the cars, imagine you could steal a car just be touching it, causing an exact copy to appear next to it.

    Now imagine everyone is capable of doing that. Any guesses on how that would affect the car industry?

    Why would anyone pay at ANY price if they could do that?

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Feds seize 10 sites for sports streaming

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      Who decides what is a reasonable price, though? What's the consensus price?

      Back to the cars, imagine you could steal a car just be touching it, causing an exact copy to appear next to it.

      Now imagine everyone is capable of doing that. Any guesses on how that would affect the car industry?

      Why would anyone pay at ANY price if they could do that?

      Personally I'd pay the NBA/Comcast 100-150 bucks a year if I had to in order to watch JUST every Pacers game on a regular size TV where I didn't have to worry about ads (well except for stupid commercials) and the stream freezing up. I have LPBB right now but I hate the small screen and some nights the feed is better than others.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Feds seize 10 sites for sports streaming

        as someone in the music industry - i don't really get much % from record sales - however when its all said and done most promoters and big festivals look at the numbers on how many records you have managed to sell in order to gauge your popularity - thats just the way it works in this day and age - most artists make their money from concerts and festivals and live events - that is where the money is but in order to become a headliner or atleast part of it - you need the sales to push you to the next level and separate you from the rest...

        i dont have problem sharing my music for free but id also would like to have a name for myself in the business and to achieve that name i do ask people to buy it as well if they can.


        with regards to this whole watching/listening/etc for free - its way too complex on so many levels.

        way before the internet - has anyone ever recorded tv shows to vcrs? have you ever recorded a song from the radio to your cassette player? if you did - then thats the same thing as what this generations kids are doing with sharing and torrenting/etc...

        in short - there is always a way one can justify their actions - but justification doesn't mean that makes it right or wrong.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Feds seize 10 sites for sports streaming

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          Who decides what is a reasonable price, though? What's the consensus price?

          Back to the cars, imagine you could steal a car just be touching it, causing an exact copy to appear next to it.

          Now imagine everyone is capable of doing that. Any guesses on how that would affect the car industry?

          Why would anyone pay at ANY price if they could do that?
          The market decides on what a reasonable price is. I think going to Wendy's and paying $9 for one combo meal is crazy, but enough people do it so Wendy's charges it. If another company comes along and can make something similiar, that people actually like, and they charge less then Wendy's will need to adjust. The music industry didn't adjust. They lobbied lawmakers and made their customers criminals.

          (And I'll say Wendy's actually does adjust. They do so by offering their $1 menu, eventhough most of it costs more than a $1....)

          I don't mind paying for music, if it were at a reasonable price. I don't pay for iTunes, because a $1 for one song equates to $20 for a CD. Nothing changed, they just made it easier to get a song instead of all of them.....

          But to go back to it, I don't mind paying for music because if no one pays, then we would have to rely on ourselves for music entertainment, just like vehicles.

          All the car companies would shut down. Parts companies gone. Etc... So while it might be a good situation for the consumer in the short term, long term it would suck. Cars are going to break down beyond repair. If there is no one to build new ones, then eventually no one would have a car.

          People aren't opposed to paying for things. If we were, then we would live in a constant state of anarachy. Most people realize the concept of how an economy works, and why buying/selling/trading of goods as been around for so long with very little change in the actual process.

          While I wish I could just get everything for free, I realize that it's impossible. I would rather buy my music. It would encourage more people to enter the music industry, creating better music for my enjoyment. I think most people see it as a circle, the same way I do.



          I don't "enjoy stealing" it. But I sure as hell would rather do it, than get my shirt ripped off my back by the greedy.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Feds seize 10 sites for sports streaming

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            The market decides on what a reasonable price is. I think going to Wendy's and paying $9 for one combo meal is crazy, but enough people do it so Wendy's charges it. If another company comes along and can make something similiar, that people actually like, and they charge less then Wendy's will need to adjust. The music industry didn't adjust. They lobbied lawmakers and made their customers criminals.
            My problem with that is it almost sounds like you're saying the pirates are customers. If they're not paying, they're not customers.

            And again, it's not like there's an Internet Fast Food I can go to and get my burger for free, either, so I don't really like the comparison.

            In fact, any comparison to anything where there is no free option doesn't really hold up.

            I don't mind paying for music, if it were at a reasonable price. I don't pay for iTunes, because a $1 for one song equates to $20 for a CD.
            Depends on what CD you're talking about, I guess. I find most albums don't approach 20 songs. Usually it's 10-15 songs. So $10-$15. And it's not that uncommon to see a discount price if you buy the entire album at once (like $9.99 for a 13-or-so song album).

            But to go back to it, I don't mind paying for music because if no one pays, then we would have to rely on ourselves for music entertainment, just like vehicles.
            Again, there is no free option for vehicles, so that doesn't work as a comparison.

            As long as there's a free option, users who know how to get it that way have no incentive to ever pay unless they want to because they're huge fans of a particular artist/group.


            All the car companies would shut down. Parts companies gone. Etc... So while it might be a good situation for the consumer in the short term, long term it would suck. Cars are going to break down beyond repair. If there is no one to build new ones, then eventually no one would have a car.
            Right. What happens when the music industry says '**** it, make your own music?' Is that a good thing?

            People aren't opposed to paying for things. If we were, then we would live in a constant state of anarachy. Most people realize the concept of how an economy works, and why buying/selling/trading of goods as been around for so long with very little change in the actual process.
            Again, where else is there a free option besides digital media?

            I don't "enjoy stealing" it. But I sure as hell would rather do it, than get my shirt ripped off my back by the greedy.
            $1 a song is a rip off to you, so how much should a single go for? $0.50?

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Feds seize 10 sites for sports streaming

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              The music industry didn't adjust. They lobbied lawmakers and made their customers criminals.
              You should stop using this line. First, as Hicks already pointed out, they aren't customers. Second, it's factually inaccurate. It has ALWAYS been illegal to circumvent the copyrights (not pay for) on copyrighted media. The only thing that has changed is the laws and penalties used to enforce those copyrights. The media companies didn't turn anyone into criminals.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Feds seize 10 sites for sports streaming

                I think this being tied to technology makes a difference. While a lot of us here know how to get music or stream games online, many others may not even know it is possible or how to do it.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Feds seize 10 sites for sports streaming

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  My problem with that is it almost sounds like you're saying the pirates are customers. If they're not paying, they're not customers.
                  They didn't start off as pirates though. They started off as troubled customers, and when they were ignored, they turned to piracy.

                  And they are still customers. I bet a good portion buy other products that they offer. Like concert tickets or merchandise (t-shirts). Just because they aren't paying for one product, doesn't mean they stop paying for all.

                  They are still customers, because they're willing to re-engage legally. iTunes showed that when people were paying money for the service, even with Limewire/Kazaa/etc in business.

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  And again, it's not like there's an Internet Fast Food I can go to and get my burger for free, either, so I don't really like the comparison.

                  In fact, any comparison to anything where there is no free option doesn't really hold up.
                  There isn't really a good comparison then. I think the only one that would work would be books/magazines. But even that is too time consuming to photoscan each page and make a file. Too big, in most cases. Just not really feasible.

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  Again, there is no free option for vehicles, so that doesn't work as a comparison.
                  Well to be fair, I didn't use the vehicle comparison. Just responding to it.

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  As long as there's a free option, users who know how to get it that way have no incentive to ever pay unless they want to because they're huge fans of a particular artist/group.
                  I think there will be some who would use the free option, but I think that's probably the fringe. iTunes took off, way before Kazaa/Limewire were shut down. Once playlist.com/youtube/pandora came around to the music scene I quit downloading all together. But I have been told that Kazaa/Limewire took a dump once iTunes took off because file quality got really bad. People started using using the legal services when they had other options.


                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  Right. What happens when the music industry says '**** it, make your own music?' Is that a good thing?
                  It won't happen. They make too much money through tours and other avenues to completely get out of the game. They aren't going to walk away from that much money.

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  $1 a song is a rip off to you, so how much should a single go for? $0.50?
                  I'm not nearly educated enough in the handling off all what it takes to maintain a site like iTunes. I'm sure there's enough information out there to make an educated opinion on it, but I honestly don't care enough to put in the effort. The sites I listed are good enough for me, they're free, and they're legal.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Feds seize 10 sites for sports streaming

                    I don't have the money to pay for all the music I listen to.

                    I try and buy a t-shirt or go to a concert for bands I like because they get more of that money.
                    Play Mafia!
                    Twitter

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Feds seize 10 sites for sports streaming

                      Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
                      I think it sucks that a 2010 Lamborghini Murcielago costs $400,000. I think I'll just go steal one since one's ability to have enjoyment from one should not be hindered by actually paying the market price for it.

                      Come pick me up when you get it, I'd like to ride in it.

                      "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Feds seize 10 sites for sports streaming

                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        My problem with that is it almost sounds like you're saying the pirates are customers. If they're not paying, they're not customers.
                        and thats just it - in most cases, the people who usually "pirate" do so cause without it they would not have it - if its not songs the "pirate" its expansive software like adobe photoshop or anything else.

                        Sure it all comes down to - well you should live by what you can and cannot afford - and in reality - its true - you don't go around taking a pack of cigarette or even bubblegum from a store - you pay for it. If its something more expansive - you either save up for it or you just realize its not a high priority in your life.

                        The thing is the current culture is more about "I'm not stealing it - I'm borrowing it from a friend."

                        How many of you have ever borrowed a cd or a movie from a friend back in the 80s or 90s? This is similar to today's torrents - the only difference is that its more widespread, easier and mainstream

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Feds seize 10 sites for sports streaming

                          There will always be people making music, and other people listening to it. We don't have to worry about it going away. I'm big into poetry, and the market value for poetry is pretty much nonexistent--yet there are still tons of very dedicated poets out there, and most of them give their work away for free. (Occasionally there's a book deal, but unless you're Billy Collins this won't even pay for your chewing gum habit.)
                          You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Feds seize 10 sites for sports streaming

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            Who decides what is a reasonable price, though? What's the consensus price?

                            Back to the cars, imagine you could steal a car just be touching it, causing an exact copy to appear next to it.

                            Now imagine everyone is capable of doing that. Any guesses on how that would affect the car industry?

                            Why would anyone pay at ANY price if they could do that?
                            But that's just the thing. Once scarcity is eliminated the monetary value of a song approaches zero. Earlier you proposed a world where musicians are paid mostly by dedicated fans who wish to support them, and I guess I just don't see that as such a bad thing. Is a musician owed anything more?

                            It used to be that, by manipulating the material conditions of music production and distribution, ultra-popular artists stood to make a great deal of money. And this was the case for so long that we as a society began to take the monetary value of this material (and hence scarce) product as a stand-in for the artistic/cultural value of the music. But generally these two things lie in separate realms. (Example: the best plays of Shakespeare are of immense artistic/cultural/intellectual value, yet can be obtained for dirt cheap, or for free.)

                            And because of at we developed the expectation that people must always pay for their music. But why? Music has become practically infinitely replicable, and as you said, no one in their right mind would pay for cars if we could instantly have all we wanted of them.

                            A select group of people's careers depended upon music recordings being scarce to some degree instead of infinitely replicable. Those conditions no longer exist, yet, naturally, those people don't want to give up their careers. This is a totally normal thing--my understanding is that Blockbuster went belly-up for the same reason. But in the case of the music industry they have perverted both our copyright laws and our natural American enthusiasm for "private property" in order to keep themselves artificially afloat. They'll die off eventually, and no one will really care; it's just sad that they are meanwhile instilling this culture wherein ideas and works of art are seen as "private property," and not as acte gratuit contributions to our immense cultural heritage.
                            You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Feds seize 10 sites for sports streaming

                              Glad our tax dollars are being put to good use. Well, this and the war on drugs.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Feds seize 10 sites for sports streaming

                                Originally posted by huber14 View Post
                                Glad our tax dollars are being put to good use. Well, this and the war on drugs.
                                Ya I would think the feds have bigger fish to fry but I guess not

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X