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

My radical concept for a new league structure

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

  • My radical concept for a new league structure

    T-bird's post got me thinking.

    I have a different, more radical concept.

    My radical concept for a new CBA would likely be even more simple, and would potentially change the way professional sports contracts are handled going forward. I would completely do away with the CBA in its entirety. I would also completely change the ownership structure of the league in its entirety also.

    As a league, why shouldn't all existing franchises complete a "merger of equals" into a league ownership consortium where existing owners receive stock (that would then become publicly traded stock) in a newly formed corporate structure with percentages of ownership determined by what the current market valuation of each team is after subjecting the entire league to independent appraisal of every franchise. These initial owners would be issued Class A stock with voting shares just like most publicly traded corporations, as well as those shares of final league profit.

    Then, the players would receive some sort of security that has value based on their own estimated "market value" that would also end up publicly traded with no voting rights but also shares of final league profit. The difference is that this security would be more like a commodity contract in that it would have a fixed expiration at the end of the player's employment contract with the corporation.

    Then, run the entire league just as large corporations are run, with performance based compensation packages, as well as the risk that anyone employed in any position can be fired at any time if they fail to perform for whatever non-injury related reason (whether it be just a simple degradation of skills, or whatever transgressions the employee might have due to personal conduct outside of their employment).

    All of a sudden, free enterprise and actual market forces begin to shape the league, and there are incentives to both cut costs and increase productivity on both sides of the current equation! There are no longer Tinsleys or Marburys or Stephen Jacksons or Jailblazers because they are subject to immediate termination of employment, with loss of all income, and the free market then determining that the player's valuation on any commodity style contracts that are based upon that player becoming zero due to lack of interest in a player no longer being in the league. The expiring nature of the commodity-like contracts would also allow room for new contracts to be issued to new players coming into the league through whatever means they come in, whether it be though the draft or some other mechanism.

    In that all Class A shares / Class B commodity-like shares would be able to be publicly traded, all parties involved would have the opportunity to sell or buy either class of shares, or to actually sell them to the public! Imagine being able to own Class A shares of the Pacers, or Class B shares of whatever player around the league that you want to, for whatever reason you choose! Imagine how the market valuations would fluctuate with team and player performance, and the interest that would drive towards both players and individual teams!

    I am certain that there are lots of holes that need to be poked into this idea, but I feel that the NBA system needs to be completely re-thought from the business model on up.

    Let the free market rule!

  • #2
    Re: My radical concept for a new league structure

    Deron Williams would just stay in Turkey.
    Report: 82% Of Wiseguys Think They're Real Funny

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: My radical concept for a new league structure

      Yikes!



      Let the free market rule!
      A free market requires free entry and exit of buyers and sellers. A free market applied to the NBA would require that teams go out of business. The current owners wouldn't allow that, and I don't suppose small shareholders would be happy with it either. A profitable team's shares would be bid up until only billionaires owned them -- just as they are now.


      Imagine being able to own shares in . . . whatever player around the league that you want to
      I don't think it is legal to own shares in another person. The 13th Amendment prohibits it.


      I say just let the two sides face off as they are doing -- until one blinks. Maybe the owners will get the "No guaranteed contracts" clause you describe. It would accomplish just as much in the current system as in your share-based system.
      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


      • #4
        Re: My radical concept for a new league structure

        Originally posted by Putnam View Post
        Yikes!





        A free market requires free entry and exit of buyers and sellers. A free market applied to the NBA would require that teams go out of business. The current owners wouldn't allow that, and I don't suppose small shareholders would be happy with it either. A profitable team's shares would be bid up until only billionaires owned them -- just as they are now.




        I don't think it is legal to own shares in another person. The 13th Amendment prohibits it.


        I say just let the two sides face off as they are doing -- until one blinks. Maybe the owners will get the "No guaranteed contracts" clause you describe. It would accomplish just as much in the current system as in your share-based system.
        Allow me to clarify what I attempted to portray initially.

        What if each player were to set themselves up as a business entity (like, for example, Lebron could have Lebron James Enterprises)? They specifically set up this entity for the purposes of receiving income from both playing basketball and earning other income from endorsements, etc.. Also, they deduct their expenses for anything related to any aspect of that business, just as they probably do for self employment income taxes today. I guess that is the type of thing I was trying to convey with my poor choice of words.

        As far as teams continuing to be owned by billionaires, if those teams values were represented by a publicly traded stock (that would initially be owned by the billionaires), it would be up to the billionaires to determine when they would offer those shares for sale to the public, and at what price. The initial price of a share of any public offering would equal the value of the franchise divided by the total number of shares issued. Example: The Pacers have a current market value of let's say $300,000,000. The powers that be decide to place an initial par value on those shares of $100 each. Therefore, the total number of shares issued to Simon would be 3,000,000. He may keep those shares for as long as he wishes, or choose to sell them, or any portion of them, to anyone he chooses, or trade them on the open market as a small cap stock and receive what the market would bear at the time he offers them. After that, the shares are no longer held by him, but he maintains control of the franchise as long as he doesn't sell so many shares that he loses controlling voting interest in the franchise. Also, at whatever point in the future, anyone interested in purchasing the franchise outright could do so by making a premium offer above whatever the stock would be currently trading at to purchase all outstanding shares of the franchise, just as happens frequently in other publicly traded firms.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: My radical concept for a new league structure

          No NBA players yet, but there is now a market for stock in individual players. Not a league structure however. Still interesting though.

          https://fantex.com/

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: My radical concept for a new league structure

            Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
            That is some shady "stocks".


            "Pacers will win 50 games this season" 07-16-2015
            "Ian will average 10-10 this season" 10-21-15

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: My radical concept for a new league structure

              As a league, why shouldn't all existing franchises complete a "merger of equals" into a league ownership consortium
              ...so you're saying the NBA should turn into Major League Soccer....



              Imagine being able to own shares in . . . whatever player around the league that you want to
              ...didn't that go out of style after the civil war?
              Last edited by Kstat; 04-09-2015, 01:54 AM.

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: My radical concept for a new league structure

                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                ...so you're saying the NBA should turn into Major League Soccer....





                ...didn't that go out of style after the civil war?
                Yes... Because you would actually literally purchase part ownership of the particular athlete... Against his/her will... SMDH
                Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: My radical concept for a new league structure

                  Originally posted by bballpacen View Post
                  Yes... Because you would actually literally purchase part ownership of the particular athlete... Against his/her will... SMDH
                  actually....yes, that's exactly how it would work

                  Of course in this case, it would be a financial investment as opposed to slavery, but...owning part of a person, trading shares publicly without said person's consent? Yeah, that is pretty much what's being suggested.

                  It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                  Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                  Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                  NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: My radical concept for a new league structure

                    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                    actually....yes, that's exactly how it would work
                    Um... no... Firstly, no one is making anyone participate in professional sports... Second, any player enters in to this company on their own volition... Third, as a holder in a players "stock" you have no authority, legal or otherwise to dictate anything that player does...

                    It is in no way comparable to slavery...
                    Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: My radical concept for a new league structure

                      ...and thus completely overlooking this part:

                      Of course in this case, it would be a financial investment as opposed to slavery, but...owning part of a person, trading shares publicly without said person's consent? Yeah, that is pretty much what's being suggested.
                      Even if you'd have player's consent (and frankly this is a horrible, horrible idea on the player's end and no one would even consent to this), the spirit of mostly-white fans buying actual real-life "shares" of actual human beings (most of them black) would be inescapable.

                      There is a reason why we do not buy or sell stock directly in human beings in this country. A very good one.
                      Last edited by Kstat; 04-09-2015, 08:52 AM.

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: My radical concept for a new league structure

                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        ...and thus completely overlooking this part:



                        Even if you'd have player's consent (and frankly this is a horrible, horrible idea on the player's end and no one would even consent to this), the spirit of mostly-white fans buying actual real-life "shares" of actual human beings (most of them black) would be inescapable.

                        There is a reason why we do not buy or sell stock directly in human beings in this country. A very good one.
                        Um...

                        https://fantex.com/

                        It is already happening... And has been for a little while...

                        Further... you are not owning a person, rather you own a portion of their future earnings... Simplified it is a type of loan or pay advance if you will
                        Last edited by bballpacen; 04-09-2015, 09:03 AM.
                        Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: My radical concept for a new league structure

                          Originally posted by bballpacen View Post
                          Um...

                          https://fantex.com/

                          It is already happening... And has been for a little while...
                          That's not a league-sponsored business dealing shares of its employees. It's basically fantasy sports. It's like saying I trade in human trafficking because I conduct fantasy football trades.
                          Last edited by Kstat; 04-09-2015, 09:16 AM.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: My radical concept for a new league structure

                            Why on Earth would the Owners of NBA teams want to do this? Nearly all the teams,iirc, have "sweetheart" deals that insure them of ptofits I. One form or the other. They don't lose Real Money and the value of their team goes up every year. When you add multiple stockholders with voting rights, you take a risk of losing control of the 'The Goose Who Lays Golden Eggs'. To paraphrase Richard Pryor, you don't become a Billionaire being no Fool!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: My radical concept for a new league structure

                              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X