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

Owner of Saints Has Officially Bought Hornets

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Owner of Saints Has Officially Bought Hornets

    http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2012/0...o-buy-hornets/

    The NBA’s days as an owner of the New Orleans Hornets are drawing to a close. The league reached a tentative agreement early Friday morning with New Orleans Saints owner Tom Benson to buy the team for $338 million, according to a source with knowledge of the discussions.

    The league chose Benson, who will be purchasing the team by himself, over a group of investors including businessman Raj Bhathal and former NBA head coach and general manager Mike Dunleavy, and former minority owner Gary Chouest, who had tried unsuccessfully to buy the team from majority owner George Shinn three years ago. The Bhathal group also included Larry Benson, Tom Benson’s younger brother.

    The New Orleans Times Picayune first reported the sale to Tom Benson on its website this morning.

    Benson would be allowed under the NFL’s rules to buy the Hornets. That sport prohibits cross ownership, the rule that prompted the Denver Nuggets’ former primary owner, Stan Kroenke, to transfer ownership of the Nuggets to his son, Josh, when Stan Kroenke obtained a majority ownership stake of the NFL’s St. Louis Rams.

    Because the Saints and Hornets both play in New Orleans, the NFL would have no objection to Tom Benson’s purchase of the Hornets.

    The Times-Picayunereported Thursday that Bhathal and Chouest met with league officials in New York on Monday.*A source indicated that Tom Benson spoke with Stern on Monday, and the deal came together quickly after that discussion.*Benson will have to pay approximately 10 percent of the purchase price immediately. The NBA’s Finance Committee is expected to approve the sale Friday morning before the Board of Governors meeting adjourns, with final approval on the sale expected later in the spring.

    Various reports had indicated that the Bhathal group was the frontrunner to buy the team, with Dunleavy expected to take a significant role in basketball operations.

    The NBA bought the Hornets from Shinn in December of 2010, for a reported was $318 million. NBA commissioner David Stern, according to a source, was determined to sell the team at a profit for owners who had been reluctant to approve the league as the Hornets’ owner. But Stern thought the NBA taking over at the time provided the best chance for the team to remain in New Orleans; Shinn was willing to sell to investors who would have moved the team.

    Stern appointed executive Jac Sperling as the team’s chairman to seek out local investors, and work with the city and the state on a new long-term lease. Sperling also spearheaded the team’s drive to sell 10,000 season tickets at New Orleans Arena.

    While the groups were being culled, Stern and the NBA received major criticism for their role in scuttling a potential deal of the Hornets’ star player, guard Chris Paul, to the Lakers in a three-team deal last December. At the time Stern said the potential trade, which would have brought several veteran players to New Orleans, wasn’t one that would help the Hornets in the long run.

    Instead, the league approved a deal that sent Paul and two second-round picks to the Los Angeles Clippers for guard Eric Gordon, forward Al-Faroqu Aminu, center Chris Kaman and a 2012 first-round pick that originally came from Minnesota. Stern was taken to task by Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert for not letting the league’s other owners have, in essence, veto power over the proposed Hornets deals.

    The Hornets have gone through a brutal season. At 16-42, New Orleans has the worst record in the Western Conference and the third-worst record in the league behind Charlotte and Washington. But with the Timberwolves tailing off in the second half of the season and eliminated from the playoffs, the Hornets will have two lottery picks in June to fast-forward the rebuilding process.

    While Tom Benson has not indicated what he will do with the Hornets’ management structure if he buys the team, it’s likely that there will be at least some changes in the organization. The Hornets have been run by team president Hugh Weber and general manager Dell Demps, who have had to get approval from the league on major transactions like the Paul deal.

    Last month, the team and the state of Louisiana reached agreement on a long-term lease that will keep the Hornets in the state until at least 2024. Under terms of the agreement, the state has to approve $40 million in improvements to New Orleans Arena and the new owner of the team has to pledge to keep the team in town. The vote on the $40 million is expected to be taken up by the Louisiana legislature in June.

    Benson bought the Saints in 1985, and after looking into potential moves of that team to another city, opted to keep the team in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The Superdome, where the Saints play, was one of the first major buildings in the city to be renovated in the year after the hurricane, and the return of the Saints to town was viewed as a key marker in the city’s rebirth.

    Benson has been involved in discussions with the league about buying the team for months, but his pursuit of the Hornets was delayed while he dealt with the fallout of the Saints’ “Bountygate,” the clandestine program run by former defensive coordinator*Gregg Williams, who paid defensive players bounties for hits that knocked opposing players out of the game. The NFL spent almost three years investigating the program and finally was able to confirm its existence; last month, the league suspended Williams indefinitely, suspended coach*Sean Payton*for a year and suspended general manager*Mickey Loomis*for eight games. Assistant coach*Joe Vitt*was suspended for six games, and the NFL fined the Saints $500,000 and stripped them of future draft picks.

    338 million to monopolize the professional sports in no sounds good to me
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Damn. I wanted the Sonics back.


    Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk
    Senior at the University of Louisville.
    Greenfield ---> The Ville

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Owner of Saints Has Officially Bought Hornets

      Now the bounty system can invade the NBA

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Owner of Saints Has Officially Bought Hornets

        I know nothing of the new owner of the Hornets, but given the strong-arm tactics of many owners when it comes time to make a deal on an arena, New Orleans may be at significant risk here.

        "You know, I'd love a to stay in New Orleans, but Vegas is making a strong pitch for the Saints. If you could swing me a publicly funded stadium for the Saints and guarantee a sell-out for all Hornets games, I'd consider staying...."

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Owner of Saints Has Officially Bought Hornets

          Benson is 84 years old. I wonder what the long term plan is.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Owner of Saints Has Officially Bought Hornets

            Originally posted by Lurker View Post
            I know nothing of the new owner of the Hornets, but given the strong-arm tactics of many owners when it comes time to make a deal on an arena, New Orleans may be at significant risk here.

            "You know, I'd love a to stay in New Orleans, but Vegas is making a strong pitch for the Saints. If you could swing me a publicly funded stadium for the Saints and guarantee a sell-out for all Hornets games, I'd consider staying...."
            Exactly what I first thought. Are there other owners that own both NBA and NFL in 1 particular city?

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Owner of Saints Has Officially Bought Hornets

              Dude is rich.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Owner of Saints Has Officially Bought Hornets

                Greg Williams has just been hired to help with the Hornet's defense.
                "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Owner of Saints Has Officially Bought Hornets

                  Perhaps I am misreading the article, but I do not understand the explanation.

                  I thought the NFL had a zero toleance policy on owning other teams. Once you owned a NFL team, you could not own another franchise in any sport.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Owner of Saints Has Officially Bought Hornets

                    Originally posted by HickeyS2000 View Post
                    Exactly what I first thought. Are there other owners that own both NBA and NFL in 1 particular city?
                    Not NBA/NFL but Mike Illitch owns the Tigers and Red Wings he almost bought the Pistons but changed his mind.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Owner of Saints Has Officially Bought Hornets

                      Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                      Perhaps I am misreading the article, but I do not understand the explanation.

                      I thought the NFL had a zero toleance policy on owning other teams. Once you owned a NFL team, you could not own another franchise in any sport.


                      No they don't Stan Kroenke owns the Nuggets and Rams(NFL)

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Owner of Saints Has Officially Bought Hornets

                        Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                        No they don't Stan Kroenke owns the Nuggets and Rams(NFL)
                        Benson would be allowed under the NFL’s rules to buy the Hornets. That sport prohibits cross ownership, the rule that prompted the Denver Nuggets’ former primary owner, Stan Kroenke, to transfer ownership of the Nuggets to his son, Josh, when Stan Kroenke obtained a majority ownership stake of the NFL’s St. Louis Rams.

                        EDIT: nevermind, I answered my own question

                        http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_owne...r_sports_teams

                        They can only own another sports franchise IF it is in the same city as the controlled NFL city or there is not an NFL team in the city of ownership. This is from an amendment in 1997 where prior, cross ownership was not allowed.

                        Example: Paul Allen owns the Seattle Seahawks and the Portland TrailBlazers because there is not an NFL team in Portland.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Owner of Saints Has Officially Bought Hornets

                          Prediction: The team name will change, and the colors will be changed to black and gold.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Owner of Saints Has Officially Bought Hornets

                            Originally posted by ZepZach View Post
                            Prediction: The team name will change, and the colors will be changed to black and gold.
                            and someone will make a stupid parody song called "black and gold' and we'll all shoot ourselves in the face

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Owner of Saints Has Officially Bought Hornets

                              What will their new nickname be? The Carnival,Fat Tuesday's, or The Hurricane.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X