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

Let Us Play

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

  • #31
    Re: Let Us Play

    Originally posted by TheDon View Post
    I got to this line:

    "They think their little $300 million-a-year giveback to us will suffice?"

    and stopped reading, if that doesn't scream out of touch with reality I don't know what does.
    That's the point. The players are offering the 300 million a year giveback and Etan is saying that from the perspective of an owner.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Let Us Play

      Again,the point is already made but I really don't care about a guy that has made $44 million for averaging 6 and 5. Etan is a prime example of how out of control NBA salaries are. He's a pretty bright guy, but I don't want to hear from him any more than I want to hear from Rashard Lewis or Juwan Howard.

      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


      • #33
        Re: Let Us Play

        One rant, one only;

        So the owners are right in this, since they (claim to) lose money, and the players, well they make way to much money anyway, not like we would ever have a chance of making that kind of money, why would they?

        True, but why do you all differ between the billionairs and the millionaires allow a billionair but not a millionair.

        Because they (the billionairs) worked hard for it? what do basketball players do?
        Hard? Tell me what Mark Cuban did outside of making very smart moves with bubble stock
        Tell me what the Maloofs did to get where they are?
        Want to tell me how Herb and his brother grew their empire? or do you really think anyone could have build the malls i Indiana(-polis) ?

        Are you really going to sit there and say straight faced that the Simon's did NOT get certain things done thanks to their ownership of the Pacers?

        27 years they own the franchise ? (since 83) and they bought it for what, $ 11 million ?

        current value would be around 300 million, i.e. a small profit of 290 million or thereabouts.

        So even if they lost 10 million a year they would still have some change left.

        Aaaah i see there are those who paid more? we talking about the Nets? plenty of proof their owner thinks he made a bundle even without playing.

        Of course next year the Celtics will also be losing money, skid row imma tellin ya!
        How come ? they dont have local tv income anymore, that is a significant lower income, now of course in the great "hard-cap/revenue sharing scheme they will be rescued because the owners will get that back from the players, no worry.

        Yep the owners run all the risk (one owner has sold his franchise at a "loss" but he got a multi-billion dollar project approved whilst he owned them which would otherwise never have been approved, so did he really lose money?
        Not even the madmen that owned Atlanta lost money, and they were begging for it.

        So what risk? no NBA franchise "lost" real value, unlike some of your houses, your car etc.

        The cost of running it ?

        Most have sweetheart deal with a city, and the staff is during the lockout fired or occupied elsewhere.
        Cost are low!

        Oh why the Celtics have no tv income anymore ?? They were smarter than Buss, they made a similar long term deal but instead of getting a bundle of money every year, which they can just as easy get back from the players; just lock them out till they break, they are now getting 20% in the tv station/company.

        Sooooooooooo mr billionaire owner can claim even worse result for the franchise, whilst making a bundle elsewhere.

        But i digress, and perhaps (green font now) agree, locking out is the right thing to do, as long as it takes so we can make up for Larry's mistakes and afford to keep the mascotte around a little longer because if he makes a mistake, we take it back from the players. (no longer green)

        The fact that they chose to lock the players out, is enough for me to support the players, reasonable people don't negotiate with a gun pointed at your head, where i come from that is called extortion and racketeering.

        /rant

        thank you and now back to your scheduled player bashing
        So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

        If you've done 6 impossible things today?
        Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Let Us Play

          able, nobody wants to hear from the players any more than the owners. The difference is, the owners aren't making public complaints. The players are painting themselves as spoiled children with some of these statements.

          The system sucks, and both the players and the owners are at fault, as they collectively negotiated it.
          Last edited by Kstat; 10-12-2011, 04:34 PM.

          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


          • #35
            Re: Let Us Play

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            able, nobody wants to hear from the players any more than the owners. The difference is, the owners aren't making public complaints. The players are painting themselves as spoiled children with some of these statements.

            The system sucks, and both the players and the owners are at fault, as they collectively negotiated it.
            How do you say it?

            That's a bingo?!?

            Bingo.


            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Let Us Play

              This is also nothing close to extortion or racketeering, any more than a players' strike would be. The NBA is locking themselves out of business just as much as the players. They cannot use replacement players. The CBA allowed for this scenario.

              This is a very legal labor move. It sucks for everyone involved, but it's their league.

              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


              • #37
                Re: Let Us Play

                Legal does not make it just.

                "they" are "going to make the players bleed"
                "players will talk different when they start missing paycheques"
                "owners don't miss paycheques, not even when players strike"

                They locked out the second they could, not like they had some decent talks first and then October 1 decided it wasn't going anywhere

                And why does the system suck ?

                1: BRI is NOT all income in a franchise, only that part that is agreed (by the CBA) minus an agreed percentage for "cost".
                2: OWNERS want most of that plus those percentages, plus other income and they want it for 10 years in the future, without letting the players get anything of possible growth or better tv deals.
                shorter contracts, preferably non-guaranteed, hard cap so they can let their idiot no good nephew run the franchise as there is nothing he can do you cant change in a few weeks.


                And if the top argument against the players is that they are acting childish, than i truly give up.
                So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Let Us Play

                  I think the top argument is that right now the product isn't at a high enough demand to justify what the owner's have to pay for the raw materials. I hate to break it down in such crude terms, but that's probably about the most cut and dry you can make it from the owner's perspective.


                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Let Us Play

                    There has never been a higher demand a higher turnover and and a greater likelyhood in enormously increased revenue streams.

                    Where does the product fail?

                    "Raw materials", and people comment on my postings when I use a metaphore of whipping them in place?
                    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Let Us Play

                      I mean the players like to view themselves as the product so I'm just saying...It's not meant to be offensive. Either way the numbers don't back up what you're saying in a lot of cities. They aren't selling out and they haven't been selling out for some time.


                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Let Us Play

                        the product fails when career journeymen are making $8 million a year.

                        Superstars are worth what they get paid, if not more. The MLE is what has gummed up the works. There's a list a mile long of guys that have worked the system in place (to their credit) to the tune of contracts they are not nearly worth.
                        Last edited by Kstat; 10-12-2011, 05:10 PM.

                        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


                        • #42
                          If we're going to bring up the increased value of the Pacers since the Simons bought in ($11m to about $300m), should we also acknowledge how much money they allegedly lose seemingly every year?

                          If the allegations are remotely accurate, I fear those losses may take an enormous bite out of that $290m 'profit', right?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Let Us Play

                            able:

                            1) If the players went on strike if revenues and profits were sky high and they felt they weren't getting enough of the pie, would that somehow be more justified than the owners using a lockout when they perceive they need leverage? If so, why? Both are legitimate tools that can be used by two sides in the labor/management tug-of-war, and if one is justified why would the other one not be?

                            2) The Pacer franchise increase in estimated value is no more a real income than the decrease in value of my home is a real loss - until one of us tries to sell the asset, paper valuation is worth the paper it is written on.

                            3) BRI does NOT exclude anywhere near all expenses - in fact, leaving the same percentage but adding expenses that were not previously excluded was rejected by the players well before the lockout.

                            4) If you want franchises to be attractive to owners who DON'T have to leverage their ownership to try to get taxpayer funded deals, then you have to make franchises something more than just clear loss leaders where the money goes down the tubes and owners can point to it and pout that they need help/a sweetheart deal on something else/whatever because of the sacrifices they made.

                            5) If the owners are somehow not legitimate because they make money in other places and therefore losing money on the franchises shouldn't be an issue, then we need superstar players to agree to have their salaries reduced by investment income, endorsement deals, and things THEY are able to leverage because they play the "famous NBA Star" card to get discounts and freebies (up to and including real estate as well). If that isn't acceptable, then the entire argument is specious.

                            6) The question "what did the owners do to help the franchise" seems to bring into play the old labor vs capital argument that only actual physical labor is worth anything - providing intellectual property or resources is worth nothing (or very little). I disagree with this position for reasons far to numerous to mention here, and that means I believe that by bringing the capital and resources into the picture the owners DO provide value that deserve a return. That said, I think fans and taxpayers deserve a return as well - for fans it is in the form of having a competitive team, which is why I favor anything that helps level the playing field between the high-revenue and low-revenue teams.
                            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


                            • #44
                              Re: Let Us Play

                              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                              the product fails when career journeymen are making $8 million a year.

                              Superstars are worth what they get paid, if not more. The MLE is what has gummed up the works. There's a list a mile long of guys that have worked the system in place (to their credit) to the tune of contracts they are not nearly worth.
                              The journeymen are one problem but the Tinsleys, Currys, and the rest who eat up team salary, won't or can't play, and can't be replaced set teams in situations that take years to recover from. Contracts are too long for too much and if the player quits there is no repercussion.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Let Us Play

                                Originally posted by able View Post
                                There has never been a higher demand a higher turnover and and a greater likelyhood in enormously increased revenue streams.

                                Where does the product fail?
                                The product fails as a sports league because the increased demand and revenue are based on an unsustainable team model - unless the league is going to contract to only the successful teams and put all the other players out of work. If that's a viable option for the players, then fine - I know it is something the superstar players are OK with because that's the model for the new "winter league" Melo was talking about on ESPN today (sorry, no link, saw it while I was working out).

                                If the answer to this is "then the high profit owners should share with the losing owners", why is that valid while "the high-dollar stars should reduce their salaries so the mid-level players can keep their salaries under a hard cap" is unspeakable and rejected out of hand? In both cases you are asking that the league and its ability to play the mid- and low-level players inflated salaries be done via getting a pitch-in from the highest revenue generators. It's just that one is on the management side while the other is on the labor side.

                                Under our antagonistic labor system, the function of the union is to get all they can without destroying the infrastructure that supports their employment. The function of management is to get all they can without jeopardizing their ability to get the employees they need. One wishes it was easier for them to compromise, but it isn't.

                                In this case, I seriously believe that the system has to be changed so that a reasonably good business mind (or group of them) has a chance of making a profit even in a smaller market. Not a guarantee of profit, but certainly not a guarantee of loss. That would go far to resolve the issues of taxpayer funding, to resolve cities seeing franchise owners as philanthropists because of how they sacrifice to own the franchise, and it would make economic sense at all levels, even for the players. Refusing to give back in an economy where practically every other person who works for a living is giving back isn't very realistic - and it is pretty clear that the Simons lost HUGE amounts outside of the Pacers through the real estate bubble bursting and real value drops of their properties due to actual vacancies and actual lost income - but the argument too often is that it doesn't count because losses only matter if you don't have money in the bank (or at least they don't count if you have more money in the bank than the ones asking for raises, therefore millionaire players should be guaranteed raises larger than anyone in the US workforce but that's OK because it is billionaires who are paying them).
                                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