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

Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

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

  • Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

    "Look for Herbert Simon to get an offer for the Indiana Pacers for around $230 million over the next few months. The Pacers are losing a pile of money and have not had a winning season since 2004-05. Simon has been borrowing money to finance operating losses and the Pacers now have roughly $150 million of debt. The Pacers pay $15 million a year to run the Conseco Field House and have tired to no avail to get taxpayers to cover more of those expenses. Simon, 75, and his late brother Melvin bought the team in 1983 for $10.5 million, so he should make out fine. But if the team goes for an enterprise value of $230 million it will be the third offer for a NBA franchise (the Charlotte Bobcats and New Jersey Nets have deals pending) far below the $300 million the expansion Bobcats went for in 2003. A bad patch like this is unprecedented in the NBA."

    http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/...r-cheap-price/ Forbes

  • #2
    Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

    Damn, I hope if he sells its to someone with Indiana ties...I have a bad feeling they would leave Indiana either way...maybe Lilly could buy it? Or is Tony George looking to do something now?


    @Pacers24Colts12

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

      with all the hard years the Pacers have had (financially) I dont see the Simons selling the team now. Our "good" days are coming up ahead of us.
      "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

        I could see Bird look at forming a group to buy the team. I could also see a guy like Jeff Smulyan (owner of Emmis) being interested too.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

          Lilly wants absolutely nothing to do with this team outside of a sign inside the building.
          Last edited by duke dynamite; 03-20-2010, 12:09 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

            The brawl is prob. responsible for at least half those losses. From that point on we have had no team. It's a shame that we played one of the best 47minute games in history against a great opponent that was the defending champions. Downhill since, this is why I still can't stand Artest.
            "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
            Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

              I think you are right - the brawl plays a large role, in addition to the retirement of Reggie Miller, an aging front office including Donnie Walsh, and poor choices in future planning - JO was really never to be a team leader and Ron Artest wasn't handled with the kid gloves he needed to be handled with, outside of the brawl. Also, Stephen Jackson should have been packaged by way of contract with Mike Brown - he's the only guy who ever was able to handle him and Stephen Jackson's mistakes didn't help this team restore its image.
              "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

                Honestly I don't blame the brawl for any of this. The fans still came out that season, and the season after. It was the off court **** that turned everyone off...remember the "It's Up To Us" Campaign, followed with the shooting at Rio?


                @Pacers24Colts12

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

                  Thought this was worth posting. The last paragraph in particular was interesting ( i wasn't aware of it at least).

                  The Dallas Morning News' Mark Francescutti has an excellent article today outlining the success teams are having by doing something counter-intuitive. Slashing prices. The Mavs are obviously the centerpiece, with this money quote from Mark Cuban:

                  "Bottom line is that the upper bowl is becoming a smaller and smaller part of our total revenue," owner Mark Cuban wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "So we would rather have a full house than make a couple dollars more. More fans means a better home-court advantage, it means a better fan experience, which in turn means more sales."

                  The reason that the Mavs can make those kind of cuts is because the modern arena economy is now dependent on corporate suites and club seating. By focusing on those tickets, it allows the teams to fill out the big house.

                  This is why so many owners are requesting new arenas (outside of sheer greed). The modern economy has shifted to a sleeker, more efficient model and many older arenas are simply not fitted to that model.

                  Which brings us to the case of Indianapolis versus Kansas City. We told you yesterday about the Pacers potentially being sold for dirt cheap (that's right, $230 million is cheap in what we're talking about). One of the reasons a potential owner may want to relocate the team is because of the way the arena is configured.

                  Conseco Fieldhouse has 66 luxury suites. To put that in perspective, American Airlines Center in Dallas has 144 suites. Geez. Even smaller markets like the Rose Garden in Portland has 70 suites. Arco Arenas is severely behind with only 30 suites, one of the reason a new arena is a major issue in Sacramento. The Toyota Center in Houston has 80 suites.
                  http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...na-economy.php

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

                    This is getting a little concerning.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

                      yeah, this is not looking good.
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

                        This is why so many owners are requesting new arenas (outside of sheer greed). The modern economy has shifted to a sleeker, more efficient model and many older arenas are simply not fitted to that model.

                        I thought Conseco Fieldhouse was the greatest sports venue in America. When did that change? I think the guys who declared Conseco the greatest were judging on some other basis than revenue-generating capability, though.

                        Are we really talking about an obsolete arena after only a decade?
                        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


                        • #13
                          Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

                          Originally posted by Putnam View Post

                          Are we really talking about an obsolete arena after only a decade?
                          I don't know for sure if that is the case, but it is possible as there certainly is precedent. The Charlotte Hornets' arena was considered obsolete about 10-15 years after it was built, and this caused the team to move. The St. Louis Rams stadium is currently considered obsolete and it is about 10 years old, hence the rumors of moving that franchise back to Los Angeles. It is important to note that both of these facilities are/were considered obsolete principally because they lack(ed) a sufficient number of luxury suites.

                          66 luxury suites to me seems sufficient for a small market like Indiana, but I don't know. The depressing thing about all of this is that these suites, which are of very few in number compared to the 15,000 or so "regular" seats, are always going to be much more important to the owner and essential to the staying power of a team in a city than the said regular seats. It doesn't really matter if Duke Dynamite and hundreds of other people like him renew their season tickets. It has little bearing at all on this team's future, well unless Duke or one of his friend win the lottery and decide to help the team out by paying luxury box prices for their seats. I think that is kind of sad. The business of sports is depressing.

                          Originally posted by putty
                          I think the guys who declared Conseco the greatest were judging on some other basis than revenue-generating capability, though.
                          I think you're right. For most folks, it is all about money. Pacer fans are lucky because I think Simon really does like having the franchise here and it is not all about money for him. From what I've heard his son isn't so generous and will likely sell the team when Herb passes away. So in the end, it will all be about money for the Pacers. In the end, whoever owns this team will care less about giving Indiana fans an entertaining product and more about making money for themselves in whatever city will allow them to be the most profitable or at least break even.

                          All of this is too emotional for me. If some dolt buys the Pacers and moves them to Kansas ****ing City over 15 damn luxury suites, I don't think I will ever be able to watch the NBA again. In fact, I don't know if I could ever give another entertainment dollar to professional sports.
                          Last edited by idioteque; 03-20-2010, 06:44 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

                            The Fieldhouse's suites are never full.

                            Again, the RCA Dome was a ghost town before the Colts became title contenders after 2004. Heck, on one of my old newspapers from the day after we drafted Granger, and it had an ad on the back of it for Colts season tickets, with no deposit or waiting lists, and this was 2005.

                            It takes winning. Establish a winning culture in any sport, city, or team and these places will be packed full again. Consistant sellouts? Maybe not. But I will tell you that all this financial mumbo-jumbo wouldn't be that big of a deal.

                            It's all in the TPTB's hands.

                            That goes without saying, if the Pacers move, I'm moving to Cincinnati.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

                              I would think the Kings would be another team. We at least have a nice new arena.

                              I really hope who ever may purchase the team keeps everything as is.

                              The marketing is fine. We need wins, good players, playoffs and hopefully success there.

                              The rebuilding is taking time. The franchise will earn the money and the team will be what it should be.

                              God, I hope they don't go anywhere my first year in Indy.

                              It takes so much for a professional franchise to relocate or shut down.
                              Last edited by Trophy; 03-20-2010, 08:02 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X