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:
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

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

Exploiting the laborers (an NCAA thread)

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Exploiting the laborers (an NCAA thread)

    Saw this and liked it. Your thoughts?

    I hate blog posts that begin this way, but I will do it anyway: Imagine that Wal-mart, Target and a hundred other major retailers all got together and agreed to an industry plan to hold down workers’s wages. Anyone involved with even rudimentary economics training would know that there would be enormous incentives for individual retailers to “cheat”, ie offer wages above the agreed to levels to try to get a particular advantage hiring the best employees. So imagine that the cartel actually forms an enforcement body, that goes around the country levying fines and punishments against any individual participant who breaks ranks and tries to share some of the largess with their workers.

    Now imagine the NY Times rooting the enforcement body on, cheering it when it adopts a new get-tough stance on organizations that pay its workers too much. Hard to imagine, but that is exactly the case in this article, where the Times writes about the NCAA’s new efforts to get tough on what it calls “recruiting violations” but in any other industry would be called “trying to pay the workers more than the cartel allows.”

    NCAA division I sports are made up of a 100+ mostly public institutions that make a fortune off of their athletic programs, particularly men’s football and basketball. Large institutions like the University of Texas or Ohio State reap tens of millions each year in ticket sales, TV deals, merchandising sales, and Bowl/tournament winnings. One of the reasons this is so profitable is that they basically pay the key workers who generate this income close to zero. Sure, they give them a scholarship, but what is the marginal cost to, say, the University of Texas for providing a few hundred free educations on top of their 40,000 paid customers? This is roughly equivalent to McDonald’s paying its employees nothing more than a couple of happy meals each day.

    While many of these university’s athletes will make nothing after college playing sports, the ones involved in these “violations” are typically athletes who are offered millions, even tens of millions of dollars the moment they leave college. In effect, these colleges are getting tens of millions of dollars of labor virtually for free, and so the incentives to cheat on their cartel deal are huge, which is why the cartel enforcers have to be so aggressive in stopping under-the-table payments to the grossly underpaid workers.

    It is an ugly process, and one wonders why so many folks support it when they would be appalled at such practices in any other industry.
    Mods, feel free to move if this belongs on another board.
    This space for rent.

  • #2
    Re: Exploiting the laborers (an NCAA thread)

    I don't have an answer, but I'm not sure the correlations between the NCAA and McDonalds are really legit.


    • #3
      Re: Exploiting the laborers (an NCAA thread)

      Ok, what would be a legit correlation?

      Remember, that specific comparison is that it doesn't cost the schools anything to get a scholarship, not that the NCAA and McDonalds are necessarily working from the same business model.
      This space for rent.


      • #4
        Re: Exploiting the laborers (an NCAA thread)

        Mens football and basketball make a fortune, and subsidize 20 other money-losing sports. Overall, I'm not sure the school makes much money off of athletics as a whole.

        Paying the basketball and football players could thus mean you can cancel volleyball, field hockey, wrestling, swimming, soccer, lacrosse, baseball, tennis, golf, hockey, softball, rowing, cheerleading, etc.

        or you pay them ALL and raise the tuition and (for public schools) sock the taxpayers.

        A free education is fine compensation
        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 10-17-2010, 10:26 PM.
        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).


        • #5
          Re: Exploiting the laborers (an NCAA thread)

          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
          Ok, what would be a legit correlation?

          Remember, that specific comparison is that it doesn't cost the schools anything to get a scholarship, not that the NCAA and McDonalds are necessarily working from the same business model.
          I don't have a comparison. I think that this is a situation that is unique in its own way.

          I don't like comparing giving an athlete a free education to paying a McDonalds employee in happy undermines the value of the education that they are receiving...


          • #6
            Re: Exploiting the laborers (an NCAA thread)

            I don't suppose zero is an accurate estimate of the value of compensation given to college players. On top of the degree, players get housing, a stipend and health care worth many thousands.

            But the question Anthem poses is a valid one. The analogy is near enough to deserve consideration. College athletes do generate income that they don't share it. But hardly anybody gets paid what he is worth. Some get a lot more and some a lot less.
            And I won't be here to see the day
            It all dries up and blows away
            I'd hang around just to see
            But they never had much use for me
            In Levelland. (James McMurtry)


            • #7
              Re: Exploiting the laborers (an NCAA thread)

              I think we ought to start paying High school athletes as well then. Have you seen some of the the HS fields in the south, and even some in OH? They have field turf, big screen TVs, workout rooms that look like NFL training facilities, sponsorships from UnderArmor and other sport clothing brands, jumbotrons.

              Hell, even my 1A school has a inflatable bear head tunnel that our basketball team purchased, and it was almost 10grand.

              Looked similiar to those. Inbetween my Soph/Jr year, we also were looking into buying a hottub, and putting it in our lockerroom, but decided against it because the school board told us we would have to make it available to all teams.

              Here recently they moved the varsity basketball lockerrom, out of the regular one, and made one with NBA looking lockers (like the wooden stalls they have with rolling leather chairs etc.), a projection TV to watch game film, and a 55inch big screen just to have, Our gym only holds 2250 people, and there were times when there was standing room only all the way around the place, and some people were even sitting on the balcony floor. I bet there was no shortage of 3,000 people. (hell one county tournament we played in, in a much smaller gym, there were people scalping tickets to the boys game after the girls final game was over. Tix were going for well over $10, when they were regular $7.)

              And don't even get me started on AAU basketball. Some teams travel in tour buses that are completely loaded, get brand new uniforms every year, brand new shoes a couple times a summer, paid hotels, paid entry fees to tournaments, plane tickets, the list goes on and on.

              I'm not saying everything is fine. The system definately needs to change, but paying athletes isn't the solution.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.


              • #8
                Re: Exploiting the laborers (an NCAA thread)

                I agree that free board and education is enough compensation. If one was really worried about exploiting the players, the seasons would be shortened and practice time would be cut drastically. If their compensation is a free education, then give them enough time for that education to happen. Make them hit a weekly quota of lab/library hours, whatever.
                You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?


                • #9
                  Re: Exploiting the laborers (an NCAA thread)

                  In a report that admittedly may be somewhat suspect in that it was sponsored by the NCAA, among the 119 Universities playing major college football (Football Bowl Subdivision schools), only 25 schools turned a profit for the atletic department as a whole in 2007-2008.

                  When broken down by sport, FBS football teams recorded a median net profit of $1.95 million. Men's basketball at the same schools produced a median profit of $518,000. No other sport, men or women's, operated in the black.

                  The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).


                  • #10
                    Re: Exploiting the laborers (an NCAA thread)

                    Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
                    I agree that free board and education is enough compensation. If one was really worried about exploiting the players, the seasons would be shortened and practice time would be cut drastically. If their compensation is a free education, then give them enough time for that education to happen. Make them hit a weekly quota of lab/library hours, whatever.
                    FWIW, all the kids who lived on my hall who were athletes had to attend study hall (coach mandated it for crew)

                    I think it was required X hours per week for freshmen, and then you were put back on mandatory study hall if your GPA fell below 2.5


                    • #11
                      Re: Exploiting the laborers (an NCAA thread)

                      SoupISGood, the NCAA strictly limits when players can work out, when and how long they can use the football facilities, and, most stringently, when coaches can be around. Teams are not allowed to require players participate in more than 4 hours of practice or training per day, or (I think) 20 hours per week, even when school is not in session. Recall the Michigan football coach who took heat when a paper reported his practice exceeded those limits?

                      The season is long and they do travel a lot, but practice time is less for many college athletes than it was in high school.

                      story on the UM "practicing too much" NCAA violations:
                      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).


                      • #12
                        Re: Exploiting the laborers (an NCAA thread)

                        I would bet every school in the nation, for every program, goes over their scheduled times. Team breakfasts/dinners don't count because they aren't "mandatory" but they are only unmandatory, by name. You gotta be there, or else.

                        During BSU's undefeated streak last year, they started practicing at Lucas Oil, because we don't have indoor facilities on campus. The bus ride to and from Indy would have counted against their time, so the bus ride wasn't "mandatory" but all the players knew there was no hitching your own ride.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.


                        • #13
                          Re: Exploiting the laborers (an NCAA thread)

                          I knew there were some kind of limits in place. I just think the question is, Is it enough? I'm definitely not the one to answer it, but I do think that if we're worried about exploiting them, instead of paying them we should make sure their athletic activity isn't making a sham of their education.
                          You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?