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

Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

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

  • #46
    Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    I'm talking about today's print-only column, Gnome.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

      Able - you run a business. You either rent or own the property it is run on. That involves costs, either rent, utilities, property taxes, depreciation/maintenance...

      That's PART of the business, not some crazy extra cost that a company can't afford to take on like it's some special thing.

      If only you could get London to pay for all your electricity and server replacements, then you could turn a good profit, right?

      Business costs - so unfair.


      As I said, they are portraying 20 years of losses, not 5-6. Not all those years involved $15m in maintenance or the current salary amounts. And once again, as I said, they DID NOT MENTION THIS when they made any pitches they had to make to get the Conseco deal done in the first place.

      They didn't tell loan people that they were running a failing business, they didn't tell the city that things were so bad they might have to move in 10 years, they didn't cry to the press about 10 years of $70m-$100m losses (they didn't lose all $200m in the last 9 years after all).

      Forget the business article spin, let's just talk MOTIVATION and TIMING. The motivation to present the type of case they are now, one that contradicts the case they made 10 years ago (in terms of being in the red or black), is plain to see. They want to reduce costs, they want someone else to pay.

      This might as well be a bunch of us at dinner where one guy starts talking about all the medical bills he has and how tough time are in order to get us to pick up the check. When he went to get a car loan the day before he somehow failed to mention this burden of debt and dire financial outlook.

      In the end my opinion on any biz, political, etc situation is that the motivations have a lot less to do with some complex situation and a lot more to do with the basics of human nature.



      Plus, I made the case in another thread that the Pacers could EASILY trim that $15m out of the payroll after next season and keep it under control for 2 seasons in a row at least and without throwing the team to the dogs. Danny is a locked up at a good price, add one more guy at 9-11m and avoid spending too much to keep Rush and Roy in a couple of years, letting them go if need be, and you've got a competitive bunch of players that cost at least $15m a year less than this group.

      The irony in all this is that it was fear of losing sponsorship money that drove them to make a horrible deal that locked them into a high payroll with a bad W-L. When you look at the balance sheet and at the Troy/Dun money right now, does that club level sponsorship really offset those costs?

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

        I just feel as if the big picture is not being seen. The team has brought a lot to this city, so have the Colts. I mean you just have to think of the development of downtown since those Knicks playoff games.

        Indianapolis seems to be the exception and not the rule when it comes to Sports affecting the local economy. It kind of gives us an identity in peoples subconcious. It made us know to New York and LA. Think of all the development coming from these big corporations going into downtown Indy.

        There isn't a product this city could ever manufacture that would surpass the advertising value of hosting a Super Bowl and an NBA Finals and a Final Four. It makes Indianapolis seem like a vibrant place. What about that Hotel tax they are racking in with these big events. They are making at least 10 dollars a room on tax.

        The Pacers just have to win. Simple as that. Win now or we may loose them forever. I'm sure Granger is tried of missing the playoffs. I bet Hibbert really wants to go. I hope our team next year can win 10 out of 12 all year. I mean thats all I can really hope for at this point, as an Indiana Pacers fan. The young core is going to have to progress...

        A deep playoff run can really generate some tax revenue in the future. The city really is close to slaughtering the dairy cow for meat. This situation is dire and downtown Indianapolis would suffer tremendously from an empty fieldhouse.

        Give them a bail out now and hope in the future they will win again. The cities hands are tied and people aren't paying for a bad product. Larry Bird really needs to get this thing on track by training camp.
        Last edited by Midcoasted; 04-19-2010, 05:07 AM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

          Originally posted by midcoasted
          The team has brought a lot to this city, so have the Colts. I mean you just have to think of the development of downtown since those Knicks playoff games.
          The development of downtown Indianapolis includes several aspects:
          • 3 new sports venues
          • several new hotels and dozens of restaurants
          • Circle Center and other retail
          • whopping expansion of commercial and office space
          • bloated state bureaucracy
          • several new parking structures (to serve daily commuters)
          • theater and concert venues
          • growth of IUPUI into a major campus


          The Pacers and Colts are the reason for the first bullet and a contributing factor to the second. But they are immaterial to the other types of development, which sum up to far more than the sports teams can account for.

          The sports teams have made a positive contribution to the downtown culture, I admit that happily. But you can't just say, "Look at downtown!" and conclude that the sports teams did all that.
          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


          • #50
            Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

            Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
            I'm talking about today's print-only column, Gnome.
            Yeah, I was surprised there wasn't a thread about it, then I realized that it's Sunday, so not online.

            Serves right, arguably the best thing he's ever written (even my dad said so), and it's not online so no one will ever see it.
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

              Considering that even if the Pacers wanted to gut the payroll they couldn't do it until 2011, and that if they simply let all the deals expire and bring in vet-minimum players to team with Danny and the "young guys" (whose contracts also will be running out a year later and who might very well have something to say at FA time about being handed teammates who clearly are only there for profit and not winning), it isn't very constructive to talk about that as a solution for the problem right now.

              For any business, if your facilities costs are this large a portion of your costs - I'd guess 18% which is huge considering the bloated portion of the budget taken up by player salaries in the NBA - you HAVE to look at those costs and do what you can to reduce them. You don't just say, "oh, well, those are costs every business has, guess we look somewhere else." You also look at what comparable businesses are doing (like the Colts and the LOS deal) and try for the same thing.
              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


              • #52
                Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                The sports teams have made a positive contribution to the downtown culture, I admit that happily. But you can't just say, "Look at downtown!" and conclude that the sports teams did all that.
                But you also can't look at the other things without the sports teams and say they would have done it on their own, especially when just one or two of any of these things have failed to revitalize other downtowns.

                The important thing was that there was actually a PLAN that brought all these things together downtown. The way the sports stadiums were lined out, the development of Circle Center, the constant addition of new hotel rooms, the expansion of the Convention Center, it wasn't really just a haphazard "hey, my dad has a mall group, let's put on a retail center!"
                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


                • #53
                  Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  But you also can't look at the other things without the sports teams and say they would have done it on their own, especially when just one or two of any of these things have failed to revitalize other downtowns.

                  The important thing was that there was actually a PLAN that brought all these things together downtown. The way the sports stadiums were lined out, the development of Circle Center, the constant addition of new hotel rooms, the expansion of the Convention Center, it wasn't really just a haphazard "hey, my dad has a mall group, let's put on a retail center!"

                  Certainly. That's what I'm trying to say.


                  And the plan goes further back than most people realize, to William Hudnut.

                  Hudnut's policies were entrepreneurial, and he hoped to attract economic development by taking risks with raising taxes and issuing bonds. He opposed deficit spending and kept the city's bond rating at AAA. He aimed for job growth, a widened tax base, and law and order. The city spent large amounts on tax incentives, infrastructure improvements, and development projects to attract business to the downtown area.

                  Over the sixteen years of his term, more than 30 major building projects took place downtown, including renovations and expansions to Monument Circle, Indianapolis Union Station, Indiana University School of Medicine, and the Indiana Convention Center. Many office buildings were constructed, and companies such as Eli Lilly and American United Life committed to staying in Indianapolis.

                  Indianapolis is known as the Amateur Sports Capital of the World, due in part to Hudnut's efforts of marketing the city. While mayor, Indianapolis held the 1987 Pan American Games and the 1982 National Sports Festival. Hudnut formed the Indiana Sports Corporation, which directed sporting projects such as the Indianapolis Tennis Center, Major Taylor Velodrome, and the IUPUI Natatorium. In 1980 Hudnut formed a committee on building a new stadium to attract an NFL team. With the newly-built Hoosier Dome and other incentives, he secretly negotiated with then-Colts owner Robert Irsay to bring the Indianapolis Colts to Indianapolis from Baltimore.
                  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


                  • #54
                    Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                    Can we get Kravitz Sunday column. Will it be available later

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      Considering that even if the Pacers wanted to gut the payroll they couldn't do it until 2011, and that if they simply let all the deals expire and bring in vet-minimum players to team with Danny and the "young guys" (whose contracts also will be running out a year later and who might very well have something to say at FA time about being handed teammates who clearly are only there for profit and not winning), it isn't very constructive to talk about that as a solution for the problem right now.

                      For any business, if your facilities costs are this large a portion of your costs - I'd guess 18% which is huge considering the bloated portion of the budget taken up by player salaries in the NBA - you HAVE to look at those costs and do what you can to reduce them. You don't just say, "oh, well, those are costs every business has, guess we look somewhere else." You also look at what comparable businesses are doing (like the Colts and the LOS deal) and try for the same thing.
                      If rent is 15 million, how much of that is offset by non pacer related events and how much that generates? What is their true rent expense?
                      Apparently non pacer revenue must be significant if they want us to pay their rent AND keep
                      non pacer revenue.
                      Do you think we should give then everything they want to keep them here?
                      There needs to be some pushback from the city to the Pacers and they can push back to
                      the labor agreement currently in place.
                      {o,o}
                      |)__)
                      -"-"-

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        Can we get Kravitz Sunday column. Will it be available later
                        Someone will probably have to type it out, Buck. It's entirety is not online at all.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                          Originally posted by owl View Post
                          There needs to be some pushback from the city to the Pacers and they can push back to
                          the labor agreement currently in place.
                          I think the Pacers pushing back on the labor agreement will do exactly nothing. As long as it doesn't hurt New York, LA, or any Hype Player, the NBA really doesn't care.

                          I think Stern would be just as happy to drop the NBA to half the teams. As long as there are 2 in NYC, 2 in LA, and one each in Boston, Toronto ("international", you see), Chicago, Dallas, Miami, and Mouseville ... er ... Orlando, there could be a few more scattered as cannon fodder across the US.
                          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


                          • #58
                            Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                            Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                            Someone will probably have to type it out, Buck. It's entirety is not online at all.
                            Scan it!

                            With the right software it can even be scanned into a document that could just be cut and pasted...

                            Assuming PD allows it.

                            ...But I no longer get the print edition of the Star so I can't do it. I would still subscribe but they no longer deliver where I am (and I'm not getting the mailed version because of the delay and extra $$$... I would still subscribe tho but I guess it was easier for them to drop me than pick up a few new subscribers out my way).
                            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


                            • #59
                              Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                              Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                              Someone will probably have to type it out, Buck. It's entirety is not online at all.
                              Can't someone scan it in

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                                I haven't read all of this post but everyone does realize that if the pacers move the CIB will be responsible for operating costs of Conseco fieldhouse right? IF the pacers leave that means the CIB must generate 41 events to replace the 41 home games. Either way the bottle shakes the CIB is going to have to pay for the stadium, so why not pay for it with 41 guaranteed events a year with the Pacers. I just feel everyone has jumped ship and is riding the Colts right now..but I try to remind everyone that there is NO GUARANTEE that the Colts wont be average again once Manning retires and if the Pacers leave and we are an average Colts team again fans will leave and revenue for the city will be greatly impacted. I know it seems selfish of the PACERS to request this but it is fair as well. Our city of Indianapolis has built up the city along with the Pacers/Colts help no need to ruin something so magical as what the city has now. I say pay the operating costs and reap the benefit of all involved. But what do I know

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X