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

Players unhappy with owners' new offer

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

  • #31
    Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    I'm confused as to what you are suggesting. The NFL negotiates national TV deal where each team gets the same amount of money. Every single NFL game is on national TV (except the preseason)

    That will not work in the NBA because so few games are on national TV. The pacers do get the same national TV money as the Lakers although the lakers were on 35 times and the pacers zero - there is a ton of revenue sharing there.

    But the difference in the NBA is in the local TV rights. The Lakers get 75M per year and the Pacers $5M

    Please note, i am using estimate in local TV $$ just to make the points

    What I'd suggest would be that all broadcasting revenue for all 30 individual teams would go into a central fund. Then would be split evenly between the 30 teams.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

      Because the Lakers are going to make a profit regardless, for example.

      So if they can profit 40mil, instead of 45mil, all while their competition profits drop from 5 mil to, say, 3 mil. It would weaken their competition, and thus make them a better team basketball wise.

      They have the ability to go above and beyond the luxury tax, because their profit margins are so high they can eat the penalty. If a team is barely making a profit, they can't afford to go over the luxury tax and get penalized.

      http://blogs.forbes.com/mikeozanian/...ver-1-billion/
      The Lakers just made a deal with Time Warner for TV rights. It's a 20 year agreement for $3billion. That breaks down to $150,000,000 per year. Say you split it 50-50, that means the Lakers get 75,000,000 with 75,000,000 going to the rest of the league. That means each team will get 2.58 million per year. That's not going to make much of a dent for the Pacers.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

        Originally posted by aaronb View Post
        Why couldn't they? Instead of each broadcast vendor calling individual teams, then could call a central office. Or each team could negotiate themselves and the league could collect the money? Either way it would end up at the same place.
        Because CBS/Fox/NBC/ESPN are all national channels. FSNIN isn't. Just like FSNOH isn't. Just like FSNMW isn't.

        All three of them are networks that show NBA games. They can't pick and choose which games they want, because their channel is restricted to their market.

        CBS/NBC/Fox/ESPN can broadcast to any market in the US.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

          Originally posted by aaronb View Post
          What I'd suggest would be that all broadcasting revenue for all 30 individual teams would go into a central fund. Then would be split evenly between the 30 teams.
          And the deals wouldn't be the same size as they are right now.

          Why would Time Warner pay LAL 3billion dollars to the rights to broadcast Laker games, when half of that money wouldn't even go to the Lakers?

          That isn't smart business.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            And the deals wouldn't be the same size as they are right now.

            Why would Time Warner pay LAL 3billion dollars to the rights to broadcast Laker games, when half of that money wouldn't even go to the Lakers?

            That isn't smart business.

            Why the hell would Time Warner care who gets the money? If anything THEY WOULD BE HAPPY THAT THE LAKERS WOULD BE PLAYING BETTER TEAMS WHILE BEING BROADCAST ON THEIR CHANNEL?

            Bottom line is that the same channels would be bidding to broadcast the same games. If Time Warner didn't want to pay, then someone else would bid. That part of the equation wouldn't change.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

              A $3,000,000,000 deal, thats 3 BILLION DOLLARS, would only amount to 2.5 mil per year for each team. The Pacers are losing 15million dollars per year now.

              Even IF you are correct, which you're not btw, that Time Warner doesn't care who ends up with their money, the extra money going out to the teams isn't nearly enough to makeup for lost profit.


              You're arguing like revenue sharing is the magic solution to all the problems, when it's clearly not. There still needs to be major changes to the system.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                A $3,000,000,000 deal, thats 3 BILLION DOLLARS, would only amount to 2.5 mil per year for each team. The Pacers are losing 15million dollars per year now.

                Even IF you are correct, which you're not btw, that Time Warner doesn't care who ends up with their money, the extra money going out to the teams isn't nearly enough to makeup for lost profit.


                You're arguing like revenue sharing is the magic solution to all the problems, when it's clearly not. There still needs to be major changes to the system.


                Revenue sharing would be part of the solution. Doing nothing isn't really a solution at all is it?


                The Time Warner example is only 1/30th of the equation. Every other team would split their broadcasting revenue as well. If teams can't profit from that then they might as well fold the league.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  A $3,000,000,000 deal, thats 3 BILLION DOLLARS, would only amount to 2.5 mil per year for each team. The Pacers are losing 15million dollars per year now.

                  Even IF you are correct, which you're not btw, that Time Warner doesn't care who ends up with their money, the extra money going out to the teams isn't nearly enough to makeup for lost profit.


                  You're arguing like revenue sharing is the magic solution to all the problems, when it's clearly not. There still needs to be major changes to the system.
                  OK, wait. what percent are you assuming would go to revenue sharing? For each team to only get 2.5 million, you'd be talking only 75 million total from the 3 billion, meaning they'd only be having to share 2.5%??
                  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


                  • #39
                    Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

                    Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                    Revenue sharing would be part of the solution. Doing nothing isn't really a solution at all is it?
                    And who is advocating doing nothing? I'm certainly not.

                    I've said revenue sharing shouldn't be done for a number of reasons, and have laid out my argument as to why. I never said the league should stay as is.

                    Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                    The Time Warner example is only 1/30th of the equation. Every other team would split their broadcasting revenue as well. If teams can't profit from that then they might as well fold the league.
                    That would cause the Pacers to lose even more money. I can't find the numbers for the Pacers deal, but let's say they get 30 mil per year from FSNIN. That means that number would be cut down to 15mil per year, and they would lose an extra 15mil on top of the 15mil they already post.

                    http://www.pacersdigest.com/showpost...0&postcount=38

                    There's a post from UB a couple of years ago when FSN IN and the Pacers reached a deal. FSN OH only gives the Cavs $25mil over 5 years.

                    That means, 5 mil per year. That means $2.5mil would go into the general fund to get split 29 different ways. That means each team would get $86,206.89.

                    The revenues aren't big enough to do anything.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      OK, wait. what percent are you assuming would go to revenue sharing? For each team to only get 2.5 million, you'd be talking only 75 million total from the 3 billion, meaning they'd only be having to share 2.5%??
                      I was working with aaron's 50-50 split.

                      The Lakers get $150,000,000 per year as the agreement now. If it was split 50-50, then they and the league would each get the $75,000,000.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        I was working with aaron's 50-50 split.

                        The Lakers get $150,000,000 per year as the agreement now. If it was split 50-50, then they and the league would each get the $75,000,000.
                        OK, I didn't know it was a 20-year deal.
                        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


                        • #42
                          Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          And who is advocating doing nothing? I'm certainly not.

                          I've said revenue sharing shouldn't be done for a number of reasons, and have laid out my argument as to why. I never said the league should stay as is.



                          That would cause the Pacers to lose even more money. I can't find the numbers for the Pacers deal, but let's say they get 30 mil per year from FSNIN. That means that number would be cut down to 15mil per year, and they would lose an extra 15mil on top of the 15mil they already post.

                          http://www.pacersdigest.com/showpost...0&postcount=38

                          There's a post from UB a couple of years ago when FSN IN and the Pacers reached a deal. FSN OH only gives the Cavs $25mil over 5 years.

                          That means, 5 mil per year. That means $2.5mil would go into the general fund to get split 29 different ways. That means each team would get $86,206.89.

                          The revenues aren't big enough to do anything.


                          So because the Cavs TV deal is bad everyone will lose money?


                          If all 30 teams paid in 100% and it would split evenly. It would boost the smaller markets take (while reducing the take of the bigger markets).

                          It's how revenue sharing works. It's how Green Bay Wisconsin can win SB's and lure free agents. Its how the Colts can pay to keep who they wish to keep.

                          It works.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

                            Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                            So because the Cavs TV deal is bad everyone will lose money?

                            The Cavs deal at $5M per year is pretty good at the time 2006 one of the four riches deals in the NBA. The Lakers deal is a landmark deal that is so much higher than anything ever before.

                            If you add all the other 29 teams combined that isn't anywhere close to the Lakers deal alone.
                            Last edited by Unclebuck; 05-04-2011, 04:22 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              The cavs deal at $5M per year is pretty good. The Lakers deal is a landmark deal that is so much h8igher than anything ever before. I would say at least 20 NBA teams get $5M per year or less from their local TV deals.


                              Which is exactly the reason why the other 10 teams need to share revenue.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

                                Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                                So because the Cavs TV deal is bad everyone will lose money?


                                If all 30 teams paid in 100% and it would split evenly. It would boost the smaller markets take (while reducing the take of the bigger markets).

                                It's how revenue sharing works. It's how Green Bay Wisconsin can win SB's and lure free agents. Its how the Colts can pay to keep who they wish to keep.

                                It works.
                                I think it works or fails depending on how the size of the pot compares to the individual team. In other words, if the Lakers and Knicks are huge exceptions and everyone else is on that lower end, the return is pretty much squat in addition and only really takes money from the Lakers and Knicks. If the Pacers and Cavs are the teeny-weeny exceptions, then it works out great for them. If the Pacers and Cavs are in fact above the median, the chances are that they would lose money by the deal.

                                But what Since86 is pointing out is that revenue sharing alone, even in the ideal case where only teams making more than the Pacers put into the pot and the Pacers put nothing in, would likely not bring in enough to cover the losses, much less add enough to allow them to go over the luxury tax like a big market team.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X