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

Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

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

  • Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

    Before anyone gets too far afield here, the comments about players earning too much money is based on the thought that the NBA has teams losing money and that to even pay the salaries they do it is at least based in part on taxpayer subsidies to the team owners.

    IOW... if all government money was pulled out of the NBA tomorrow and owners had to pay leases at market value and survive solely off the gate and TV contract, would the players still be 'worth' as much as they are currently being paid?

    Nobody is saying that players shouldn't get paid what the market will bear, but they are saying that market shouldn't be rigged and skewed. Or basically, the (some) players are actually being paid MORE than the market can truly bear. There's little comparison with big name actors because it is more a pure market, although some mega stars will sometimes work for peanuts on low budget projects if they feel it is a worthwhile cause. And even if an actor can demand 20 million, if his movies start flopping his star will dim and he won't get 20 million in the future. And if the movie biz as a whole takes a downturn at the box office, he'll find it harder to get his going rate for very long.

    Meanwhile, NBA players are locked in for their contract regardless of performance or the league's gate and tv performance. The NBA cannot react quickly to downturns or problems, and because of taxpayer subsidies they react even more slowly than they otherwise would have to.

    Also, for the good of the league, keeping ticket prices very reasonable, even in areas below the balcony, is a solid growth strategy (IMO). Just because tickets sell good for some teams on a hot streak, it's not sustainable long term. Owners and players alike need to realize that.
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • Re: More nonsense from Patrick Early

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      I don't think that analogy works. The impact of losing thousands of good paying jobs far outweighs anything the Pacers provide financially to the city of Indianapolis.

      I think before the city does anything, they should bring in some independent consultants to analyze the cost / benefit to the city. I don't think the CIB or local politicians are competent and non-biased enough to make this decision.
      The key point I was making was the public/private statement. Let me first say, I am not exactly supportive of any city using my tax dollars to pay for a pro sports venues when my streets are in terrible shape and my alley is quite literally falling apart.

      At any rate, Eli Lilly and the Pacers are both private entities that the city of Indianapolis does not "own." While losing Eli Lilly will obviously be a huge hit to this city's economy; if you are making the argument we should not use tax dollars to pay for the Colts or Pacers if they threaten to leave town because they are "private" companies, the same is true of Eli Lilly.

      Both provide jobs, both provide tax revenue, and both would hurt the city if one of them packed up and left (one more than other, but that is beside the point I am getting at). They are also both private companies that by most people's logic, should be allowed to leave town if they request use of public money to stay here.
      Last edited by DC 38; 03-19-2009, 07:32 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

        Originally posted by Bball View Post
        Before anyone gets too far afield here, the comments about players earning too much money is based on the thought that the NBA has teams losing money and that to even pay the salaries they do it is at least based in part on taxpayer subsidies to the team owners.

        IOW... if all government money was pulled out of the NBA tomorrow and owners had to pay leases at market value and survive solely off the gate and TV contract, would the players still be 'worth' as much as they are currently being paid?

        Nobody is saying that players shouldn't get paid what the market will bear, but they are saying that market shouldn't be rigged and skewed. Or basically, the (some) players are actually being paid MORE than the market can truly bear. There's little comparison with big name actors because it is more a pure market, although some mega stars will sometimes work for peanuts on low budget projects if they feel it is a worthwhile cause. And even if an actor can demand 20 million, if his movies start flopping his star will dim and he won't get 20 million in the future. And if the movie biz as a whole takes a downturn at the box office, he'll find it harder to get his going rate for very long.

        Meanwhile, NBA players are locked in for their contract regardless of performance or the league's gate and tv performance. The NBA cannot react quickly to downturns or problems, and because of taxpayer subsidies they react even more slowly than they otherwise would have to.

        Also, for the good of the league, keeping ticket prices very reasonable, even in areas below the balcony, is a solid growth strategy (IMO). Just because tickets sell good for some teams on a hot streak, it's not sustainable long term. Owners and players alike need to realize that.
        I like what you are saying here. When i moved here to San Antonio in 1998 there was great concern that the Spurs might move to New Orlenes because of having to play in the Dome. They were looking to get a new arena which the locals were not to high on because, unlike Indy, the city did not have an NFL eam waiting to cut and run when they built it. Fortunatly for the Spurs and their fans, the title came in '99 and the new arena was built. Of course, the Spurs paid part of it with the rest coming from a hotel tax which works in a tourist city like ours.

        As successful as the Spurs have been the past 10 seasons, they still have to work hard to sell tickets and make money. They are pushing really hard in getting season tickets reupped for next season, holding them to tha same price as thsi season. There have been fewer sell outs this year and more specials. Not to the extent of the Pacers, but still they are still working to keep it going. They may be making a profit, but thier principal owner, Holt of Holt Catapillar, has been making less money on the buisness side, so the Spurs will probably feel that as well.

        It will be interesting to see what happens as Duncan and Manu get even older and the team slips back more. Unless the economic structure of the league is changed, I think they will struggle as well.

        Indianapolis may have reached the point where they can't afford 2 pro teams, if they ever could. Remember, the Colts couldn't sell tickets when the Pacers were filling the building and now it is vice versa.

        Someone mentioned Kansas City as a possible desitnation. How would a metro area of only 100,000 have the means to support 3 big league teams? Heck, the Royals are bottom dwellers because of the lack of money they get locally. One could argue the same with the Tampa/St. Pete area that has less than a million more people. Seattle seems to be the logical choice seeing how they are the largest metro area without a team, followed by San diego and St. Louis. But hose cities have issues as well with their current teams in other leagues.

        By the way, i find it very interesting that Kansas City can keep a football team with a 30 year old stadium. Are the fans there just that rabid and the team that loyal?
        Last edited by SycamoreKen; 03-19-2009, 10:04 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

          Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
          I like what you are saying here. When i moved here to San Antonio in 1998 there was great concern that the Spurs might move to New Orlenes because of having to play in the Dome. They were looking to get a new arena which the locals were not to high on because, unlike Indy, the city did not have an NFL eam waiting to cut and run when they built it. Fortunatly for the Spurs and their fans, the title came in '99 and the new arena was built. Of course, the Spurs paid part of it with the rest coming from a hotel tax which works in a tourist city like ours.

          As successful as the Spurs have been the past 10 seasons, they still have to work hard to sell tickets and make money. They are pushing really hard in getting season tickets reupped for next season, holding them to tha same price as thsi season. There have been fewer sell outs this year and more specials. Not to the extent of the Pacers, but still they are still working to keep it going. They may be making a profit, but thier principal owner, Holt of Holt Catapillar, has been making less money on the buisness side, so the Spurs will probably feel that as well.

          It will be interesting to see what happens as Duncan and Manu get even older and the team slips back more. Unless the economic structure of the league is changed, I think they will struggle as well.

          Indianapolis may have reached the point where they can't afford 2 pro teams, if they ever could. Remember, the Colts couldn't sell tickets when the Pacers were filling the building and now it is vice versa.

          Someone mentioned Kansas City as a possible desitnation. How would a metro area of only 100,000 have the means to support 3 big league teams? Heck, the Royals are bottom dwellers because of the lack of money they get locally. One could argue the same with the Tampa/St. Pete area that has less than a million more people. Seattle seems to be the logical choice seeing how they are the largest metro area without a team, followed by San diego and St. Louis. But hose cities have issues as well with their current teams in other leagues.

          By the way, i find it very interesting that Kansas City can keep a football team with a 30 year old stadium. Are the fans there just that rabid and the team that loyal?
          I believe that Arrowhead is something like a landmark in those parts. It is more likely to be renovated than tore down.
          "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

          Comment


          • Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

            Originally posted by Putnam View Post
            Are you sure?


            Conseco Fieldhouse is public property.

            The Simons agreed back in 1999 to manage and operate the facility for a fixed period of time. But Conseco is the CIB's property, and ultimately the CIB's responsibility.


            The Simons have been paying the city's bills for them for 10 years. That doesn't mean those bills have become the moral responsibility of the Simons. Conseco is still public property.

            The Simons have the right to open the deal now. The CIB agreed to review in 2009 back in 1999. They can't say "No" to that.

            The city can't say "No" to its ultimate responsibility to own Conseco Fieldhouse.

            It can say "No" to one or more particular new proposals that the Simons may offer. But the city cannot insist on the old agreement.

            If they keep saying "No" to the best tenant and partner they could hope to find, they STILL incur all the costs. That is not what the taxpayers want.
            Most tenants I've met pay rent.
            "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."

            --Jack Nicholson as Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men

            Comment


            • Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
              Well, Taterhead, I guess this has gone on long enough.

              You and I aren't going to agree and you evidently know much more about the Indianapolis economy living in Arizona than any of us who actually live here and get paid to study the Indianapolis economy do.
              Please don't insult my intelligence Putnam. I lived in Indianapolis for 27 years and operated my own marketing business for 5 of those and have a degree related to that. I'm not somebody that spouts off about things he knows absolutely nothing about, so please don't paint me that way. I am sure you are very good at your job, but I can also assure you there are people who do the exact same thing as you who wouldn't agree with your opinion on this matter. Interpretation is a funny thing. I didn't insult you in any of my posts, all I ask is for the same in return.



              Anyways, I do apologize for getting too far off subject, even though I think it is closely related to the topic. I'm still not sure how it got classified as politics. But whatever.

              Back to the subject at hand. I have to say BBall is hitting this right on the money. I don't think anyone is saying NBA players don't deserve market value. But the market itself is the problem. Specifically, the fact that they are paid their full salary regardless of what happens is the biggest flaw. That is unreasonable. What other business are the employees of that business making that much more than the owner and can't be given the ax?

              So you either have to hold the owners solely responsible for their losses for spending out of their means. Or come to the conclusion that the NBA model is severely flawed and needs a major retooling. If the only way Indianapolis can compete with NY is to spend way out of their capability risking financial meltdown, then it is an unfair system. Either way the taxpayers shouldn't have to bear the burden of either. And a better question might be do you even want to care about a league in which that is the case? Sports is supposed to be about fair play.

              Regardless of what you think of the deal for the Fieldhouse is in relation to the Colts deal for LOS, you have to at least admit that from a business perspective it is one heck of a favorable deal. And if you can't survive with out over spending in the best stadium in the league with that deal, then that is not the citizens problem. It's more about the importance of making a stand against wealthy welfare and demanding personal responsibility than worrying about the what ifs and might happens to me.
              "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

              Comment


              • Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

                Originally posted by MarionDeputy View Post
                Most tenants I've met pay rent.
                Most tenants didn't pay to put up the building then hand it over to the landlord.
                BillS

                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                Comment


                • Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

                  Putnam
                  400M divided by 89B is 0.004 or 0.4%. Just curious why this has been stated so many times and gone uncorrected.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

                    Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                    Putnam
                    400M divided by 89B is 0.004 or 0.4%. Just curious why this has been stated so many times and gone uncorrected.
                    I clarified it immediately after I said it:

                    Originally posted by Putnam
                    That is less than half of one percent.
                    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)

                    Comment


                    • Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

                      There is a new blog (it's not mine, I swear) with a great little write-up about the pacers moving (or not moving). The site is http://www.naptownsports.com . This guy hits the nail on the head.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X