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

  • #61
    Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post

    You link an article to support your argument for revenue sharing when the summary of it is an anti-revenue sharing theme, and no mention of that?

    Come on now....
    Thanks for reading I guess? But you read it wrong actually. It's not anti revenue sharing at all, if anything it argues for more revenue sharing.

    How strange that I read that section you quoted and come up with an entirely different interpretation. The article says that the NFL's revenue sharing is coming apart because of a dramatic increase in unshared revenue. This creates a competitive imbalance. The very thing which is happening in the NBA.

    Given that statement, logically the solution is to share even more revenue right? Not get rid of revenue sharing? How in the world do you construe that as anti-revenue sharing?
    Last edited by wintermute; 05-05-2011, 01:21 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

      It shows that even with a high percentage of revenue sharing, it's still a broken model. This is what happens when teams depend on revenue sharing to make a profit, rather than be financially independent.

      http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...ces/index.html

      When you base revenue sharing on actual revenues, you incentivize sloth and aggressively diminish a franchise's motivation to move upward, as gains in revenue will be offset initially by lost welfare payments. It's a zero-sum game -- one the Pirates elected not to play.

      What the system doesn't do is level the playing field. It simply creates a welfare class of teams that can turn significant profits by keeping payroll down, knowing that if revenues fall, they'll cash a big check from the Yankees, the Red Sox, the Cubs, the Dodgers. What the Pirates have done may be morally wrong, and it's more than a little dishonest, but it's also economically rational for an ownership group that values steady profits over on-field success and the risk that pursuing the latter would entail.
      You can fix this system, but to do so, you'd have to give up the salary-dampening features of it. MLB's problem isn't gaps in actual revenue, but in potential revenue, and a well-designed system would address those gaps. Gather smart people and have them quantify what it means to play in the Bronx versus Baltimore, or in Queens versus the Queen City. Establish the baseline differences in market sizes using everything but actual revenues. Then design a system that shares revenue according to those differences, leveling the gap between Kansas City and Philadelphia, rather than between the Royals and Phillies. If a team does a particularly good job of leveraging its market to make money, they shouldn't be penalized for that. Similarly, if a large-market team becomes a sad joke, they shouldn't get bailed out by dipping into the fund. Revenue-sharing shouldn't be punishment for failure or reward for success; it should be a tool to create a fair and level field of competition.

      In a well-designed system, the Pirates would have the same incentive to improve, to compete, to win as every other team, because the money they would make by doing so would belong to them. There would be no diminishing returns. The revenue-sharing mechanism would properly adjust for their small market separate from their revenues, leaving them free to invest in their product with the same potential for return as the Yankees do. That is not the case today, and while the Pirates are the easy and obvious target, be sure to save some opprobrium for the owners, led by commissioner Bud Selig, who aggressively pursued this setup over the past two decades. The crime isn't the Pirates' decisions -- it's the system that made those decisions rational.
      The revenue sharing models in both the NFL and MLB aren't working, and both need to be fixed.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        It shows that even with a high percentage of revenue sharing, it's still a broken model. This is what happens when teams depend on revenue sharing to make a profit, rather than be financially independent.

        http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...ces/index.html



        The revenue sharing models in both the NFL and MLB aren't working, and both need to be fixed.


        Revenue sharing isn't the problem. It's that bigger market teams (Washington and Dallas in particular) are trying to find ways around sharing their money.

        It makes sense, both are terribly run franchises who want to have NY Yankees types of competitive advantages.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

          And why I say it's an anti-revenue sharing article is because of the combination of your two posts. The NBA isn't going to share 100% of the revenue. They will have unshared revenue, like gate revenue's etc. LA can simply raise ticket prices, while the Pacers can't. They will get to keep more.

          It takes away incentives for small markets, like Pitt, and it provides loopholes to larger markets to retain their own money.

          They aren't going to share 100% of the revenue. That's not going to happen.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            It shows that even with a high percentage of revenue sharing, it's still a broken model. This is what happens when teams depend on revenue sharing to make a profit, rather than be financially independent.
            The previous article pointed out that the NFL previously shared up to 80% of all revenue. Problems cropped up when this percentage went down, which is what is happening now. So it wasn't broken when the shared percentage was high, but it's broken now that the percentage is being reduced. Seems very sensible to me.

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            The revenue sharing models in both the NFL and MLB aren't working, and both need to be fixed.
            I don't really know much about MLB, but it seems to me the problem being referred to there is the MLB's lack of a salary floor. Both the NFL and MLB have salary floors. And I heartily agree with any provisions that say shared revenue must be spent, not saved. After all, that is the whole point, giving poorer teams spending money to compete.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

              Originally posted by aaronb View Post
              Revenue sharing isn't the problem. It's that bigger market teams (Washington and Dallas in particular) are trying to find ways around sharing their money.
              As they should, it's THEIR money.

              When small market teams can turn a profit, by minimizing their expenses and just racking in the shared revenue, it hurts the league.

              It doesn't make the league more competitive, it actually does the opposite.

              What incentive is there for a team like Indiana to go out and spend money, and make their own profit, when they can collect cash for doing little?

              As much as we love the NBA, it's still a business. And the point of business is to make money. What's going to stop owners from just sitting back and collecting while doing very little?

              Nothing. That's why there are the Pittsburgh Pirates of the world that don't even attempt to try and get better.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                And why I say it's an anti-revenue sharing article is because of the combination of your two posts. The NBA isn't going to share 100% of the revenue. They will have unshared revenue, like gate revenue's etc. LA can simply raise ticket prices, while the Pacers can't. They will get to keep more.

                It takes away incentives for small markets, like Pitt, and it provides loopholes to larger markets to retain their own money.

                They aren't going to share 100% of the revenue. That's not going to happen.
                The difference is, the NFL is going from a system with a very small percentage of shared revenue (80%) to one where the shared component is much less. That is a problem.

                The NBA has very limited shared revenue right now. Going up any amount is an improvement.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

                  Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                  The previous article pointed out that the NFL previously shared up to 80% of all revenue. Problems cropped up when this percentage went down, which is what is happening now. So it wasn't broken when the shared percentage was high, but it's broken now that the percentage is being reduced. Seems very sensible to me.
                  The rules didn't change. Teams found out ways to increase the profit they could keep. Like raising ticket prices.....

                  Like I said, those rules would still have to be in place. You're not going to get 100% sharing. That won't happen.

                  Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                  I don't really know much about MLB, but it seems to me the problem being referred to there is the MLB's lack of a salary floor. Both the NFL and MLB have salary floors. And I heartily agree with any provisions that say shared revenue must be spent, not saved. After all, that is the whole point, giving poorer teams spending money to compete.
                  All a salary floor would do is reduce the profit. They would still be able to turn a nice little profit, not as big mind you, but they still would make money for doing very little.

                  It takes the incentive away for fielding a competitive team. They can be horrible, and the team can make money. Why would they want to reduce their profit in order to get better? In the end it's all about money.

                  Seattle got their team ripped away from them because the new owners thought they could turn a bigger profit in OKC. You don't think owners would start toeing the salary floor?
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

                    Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                    The difference is, the NFL is going from a system with a very small percentage of shared revenue (80%) to one where the shared component is much less. That is a problem.

                    The NBA has very limited shared revenue right now. Going up any amount is an improvement.
                    They aren't going to any new system. It's the same system, teams have just found away around it.

                    And even so, it still doesn't fix the lack of incentive to build a competitive franchise.


                    Revenue sharing creates a ton of problems. There isn't a single model out there that works. NFL and MLB are different and they have different problems, but some similiar ones as well.

                    Revenue sharing isn't THE answer.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post

                      When small market teams can turn a profit, by minimizing their expenses and just racking in the shared revenue, it hurts the league.

                      It doesn't make the league more competitive, it actually does the opposite.

                      What incentive is there for a team like Indiana to go out and spend money, and make their own profit, when they can collect cash for doing little?

                      As much as we love the NBA, it's still a business. And the point of business is to make money. What's going to stop owners from just sitting back and collecting while doing very little?

                      Nothing. That's why there are the Pittsburgh Pirates of the world that don't even attempt to try and get better.
                      Totally agree. Small market teams must spend in order to make the league competitive. I think we're actually agreeing now.

                      Revenue sharing must come with provisions such that the shared revenue should be spent on improving the team. I don't know what's the mechanism for that is going to be, maybe min spending floors, spend-to-earn, etc, but I agree wholeheartedly that teams like Indiana should not have incentive to receive shared revenue checks and just sit on the profit.

                      However, to get there you must have revenue sharing in the first place. After that, tweak the system to your heart's content.
                      Last edited by wintermute; 05-05-2011, 02:08 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

                        I look at revenue sharing the same way I do communism. Looks great on paper, but it's a trainwreck when put into use.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post

                          Seattle got their team ripped away from them because the new owners thought they could turn a bigger profit in OKC. You don't think owners would start toeing the salary floor?
                          What? Now this is going totally OT. OKC is a smaller market than Seattle. You don't think Clay Bennett knows that? You don't think Clay Bennett being from OKC is the main factor in the move?

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          They aren't going to any new system. It's the same system, teams have just found away around it.
                          It worked for a long time though. But nothing is perfect. Teams find loopholes, then the league should plug them.

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Revenue sharing creates a ton of problems. There isn't a single model out there that works. NFL and MLB are different and they have different problems, but some similiar ones as well.

                          Revenue sharing isn't THE answer.
                          Agreed and agreed. I've repeatedly said the revenue sharing is not THE answer. But I certainly think it's a major component. You on the other hand, seem to think there shouldn't be any revenue sharing at all.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            I look at revenue sharing the same way I do communism. Looks great on paper, but it's a trainwreck when put into use.

                            As is unchecked and unregulated capitalism.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              I look at revenue sharing the same way I do communism. Looks great on paper, but it's a trainwreck when put into use.
                              Well if it's an ideological thing with you then there's no way to convince you.

                              For what's it worth, I'm a big believer in free markets.

                              But as I've mentioned twice in this thread, the NBA is NOT a free market. It gets to dictate various things which its teams must do. For example, for the sake of competitive balance, the league mandates that the best prospects go to the worst teams. Why aren't you upset about that? Why then would you be upset that the league can decide to reallocate revenue to improve competitive balance?

                              I don't agree btw that NBA teams are independent businesses. If they are, then the Pacers for example should be able to up roots and go touring a la the Globetrotters. The NBA teams have a symbiotic existence with each other.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer

                                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                                What? Now this is going totally OT. OKC is a smaller market than Seattle. You don't think Clay Bennett knows that? You don't think Clay Bennett being from OKC is the main factor in the move?
                                No. I think money is the main factor, as it usually is.


                                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                                Agreed and agreed. I've repeatedly said the revenue sharing is not THE answer. But I certainly think it's a major component. You on the other hand, seem to think there shouldn't be any revenue sharing at all.
                                I think a hardcap is a better solution.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X