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

NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

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

  • #61
    Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
    It will be. Once it starts down this slope, it's not going to stop until every bit of space has been sold out.

    It'll start with a patch, and they they will want to sell two patches, then three, then there will be bigger ones, then they will start on the other side of the jersey...

    easy money is addicting.
    and then the NBA will introduce long sleeves and pants to make more room for patches.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

      Originally posted by ballism View Post
      and then the NBA will introduce long sleeves and pants to make more room for patches.
      Hell, they practically wear pants now. Lots of room on those ugly shorts......

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        Do you have an actual economic study that shows the growth in prices can be reasonably inferred to be the same as it would have been without advertising, or is this just a general "if prices go up at all then other sources of revenue must be going straight to profit" observation?

        In some cases, like the Super Bowl, prices are based on scarcity. That means they aren't being priced in any relation to the costs, they are priced based on the buyer's perceived value. It would take pretty high prices before the cost of a Super Bowl ticket makes a difference in the sale of tickets - this would be an "inelastic" good, one where demand does not change significantly based on price. So, for this sort of good, your view would be correct.

        In other cases, like video games, I'd venture to say that price has a much greater effect on demand - in other words, those goods are "elastic". I would bet that product placement/advertising revenue does a great deal to hold down the increase in prices in order to make sure demand is maximized. Costs still go up because inflation exists, but the base price would be more if it wasn't for the infusion of additional revenue. For this sort of good, your view is likely incorrect.

        Pacer tickets fall into something of a gray area, because it is hard to tell if the lack of demand is due to ticket pricing or the perceived quality of the good provided. In any event, though, there is not a whole lot of room to reduce ticket prices further due to the cost structure and the current money losing situation of the team. For additional revenue to come anywhere close to having an effect on ticket prices, it would have to be relatively large compared to the cost of running the team. If it is not, then it is better served going toward those costs ALREADY not covered by the current ticket sales rather than being used to essentially have no increase in overall revenue by subtracting a portion from current income that - at best - would keep losses at the same level. There is no evidence to suggest at all that such revenue would simply line anyone's pockets ("make the rich richer") with no regard to the current bottom line of the team.
        First off don't take my post that seriously, secondly I have a good, detailed understanding of how and why the prices are what they are in all of the examples I used.

        My point was simply that increasing advertisement revenue rarely goes towards decreasing the cost of the product. It is more likely to either go towards offsetting other rising costs, or increasing profits. Typically the only time the price of a product drops is if there is a decrease in demand.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

          I want Cuban to take advantage of this somehow like just take out an advertisement space on the patch that says "stern sucks" or something along those lines if they're allowed to individualize the advertisements per team. Unfortunately (or foturnately pending on how ya look at it) i'm sure there will be some sort of system in place to not allow anything like that to happen.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

            I don't like it, but when it happens it won't cause me to stop watching the NBA.

            I do notice the ads on WNBA jerseys (quite a few of us on this board watch these games and unlike the NBA, the league has been growing slowly but steadily across the board despite the recession - but I digress) and I don't like it there either. However, I understand the financial realities of the league made it a necessity - that makes it easier to tolerate because I'd rather have a WNBA with logos on jerseys than no WNBA at all. But you'd better believe I ran out to get a Tamika Catchings jersey before the Boost Mobile logo went on it and I will likely do the same with the Pacers. It sucks.

            At the end of the day, I am actually much more annoyed about the ads being on jerseys that I buy than I am about watching the players perform in said jerseys.
            "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

            "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

            "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

              Originally posted by gummy View Post
              I don't like it, but when it happens it won't cause me to stop watching the NBA.

              I do notice the ads on WNBA jerseys (quite a few of us on this board watch these games and unlike the NBA, the league has been growing slowly but steadily across the board despite the recession - but I digress) and I don't like it there either. However, I understand the financial realities of the league made it a necessity - that makes it easier to tolerate because I'd rather have a WNBA with logos on jerseys than no WNBA at all. But you'd better believe I ran out to get a Tamika Catchings jersey before the Boost Mobile logo went on it and I will likely do the same with the Pacers. It sucks.

              At the end of the day, I am actually much more annoyed about the ads being on jerseys that I buy than I am about watching the players perform in said jerseys.
              It was inevitable. We might as well just get used to seeing it. They are going to raise revenue every way they can.....

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

                NBA Jerseys will look like NASCAR uniforms before its all said and done. What a shame. You wont catch me being a moving billboard for those advertisers. Ill sport a basic logo shirt only IF they dont have the stupid ads on there either. Shame on you NBA, Shame on you!

                edit: MLB says NO to ads on uniforms. Much respect to Bud Selig!
                http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story...t-ads-uniforms
                Last edited by aero; 07-20-2012, 08:56 PM.
                If you havin' depth problems, I feel bad for you son; I got 99 problems but a bench ain't one! - Hicks
                [/center]
                @thatguyjoe84

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

                  Originally posted by ColeTheMole View Post
                  Ah i think itll be funny. Hopefully the bobcats are sponspored by Bob's nickel and dime store because no one else wants to.
                  Meow Mix!

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

                    I couldn't care less. Do dislike the idea of the ads being on replica jerseys though.

                    There's a poll asking if you support it on nba.com, which is honestly kind of surprising. You'd think if it was really a for sure done deal there'd be no need for a poll. Not that I think Stern or Silver care a bit about what an online poll says, just peculiar.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

                      Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                      I couldn't care less. Do dislike the idea of the ads being on replica jerseys though.

                      There's a poll asking if you support it on nba.com, which is honestly kind of surprising. You'd think if it was really a for sure done deal there'd be no need for a poll. Not that I think Stern or Silver care a bit about what an online poll says, just peculiar.
                      It's just a game people who thrive on power like to play. Ask the peasants, then disregard their answer. I like the NBA a little less after this...forcing us to watch commercials while the game is playing. I will not be surprised if they started zooming in on logos after a dunk. WWF....

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

                        While still annoyed, I am intrigued by the particulars of this. If anyone knows the answer to any of these please let me know.

                        -Does each team get to decide their own sponsor?
                        -Does each team keep whatever they make? That Laker tag will be worth a mint.
                        -As someone mentioned earlier, what if a player is already sponsored by a competing brand?
                        -Can Nike buy a patch on the uniforms to mess with Adidas?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

                          Does this mean the NBA multimillionaires will stop asking tax payers to fund their multimillion dollar stadiums where they play games the tax payers cannot afford to attend?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Does this mean the NBA multimillionaires will stop asking tax payers to fund their multimillion dollar stadiums where they play games the tax payers cannot afford to attend?


                            Please, someone of the tons of people who keep whining about this, tell me JUST WHAT YOU THINK IS FAIR FOR AN NBA GAME WHERE THE PLAYERS MAKE $48M PER YEAR?

                            How many millions of dollars should an owner be required to lose before someone realizes that losing money is still losing money? $30M per year loss on $1B is 3% - 3% of a $40,000 salary (below the Indiana median income, by the way) is $1200 - a courtside Pacer ticket is $200, which is one half of one percent. Your argument is that the owner should be forced to lose 6 times more than a typical fan could pay for the best ticket in the house so you can watch the team for free?

                            Quit complaining about the prices and TELL ME WHAT PRICE YOU WANT TO PAY AND WHAT QUALITY SEAT YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD GET FOR THAT PRICE.

                            Otherwise, just start a campaign to run the team out of town so your share of the taxes (probably about $10 per year since you obviously can't afford to go out to eat downtown) can go to something else.
                            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


                            • #74
                              Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post


                              Please, someone of the tons of people who keep whining about this, tell me JUST WHAT YOU THINK IS FAIR FOR AN NBA GAME WHERE THE PLAYERS MAKE $48M PER YEAR?

                              How many millions of dollars should an owner be required to lose before someone realizes that losing money is still losing money? $30M per year loss on $1B is 3% - 3% of a $40,000 salary (below the Indiana median income, by the way) is $1200 - a courtside Pacer ticket is $200, which is one half of one percent. Your argument is that the owner should be forced to lose 6 times more than a typical fan could pay for the best ticket in the house so you can watch the team for free?

                              Quit complaining about the prices and TELL ME WHAT PRICE YOU WANT TO PAY AND WHAT QUALITY SEAT YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD GET FOR THAT PRICE.

                              Otherwise, just start a campaign to run the team out of town so your share of the taxes (probably about $10 per year since you obviously can't afford to go out to eat downtown) can go to something else.
                              I work and eat out every day of the week...almost always in Circle Center mall. So, I pay probably about $10/week. ...and I'm not one to have a problem paying for tickets but I'm actually the exception.

                              Anyway, my beef is with the system as a whole. I don't believe billionaires who pay men millions of dollars to play a boy's game should be asking for the middle class to fund their stadium....unless there is an independent accounting that it's worth it to the city. I wouldn't want the city to hand out money to Eli Lilly either...again, unless there was a provable ROI.

                              ...and no, I don't support running the team out of town. I would like them to stick around and adjust their financial model so they don't have to involve tax payers in their private business. Reduce player salaries if you need to. But they cave and fork out more and more money because some of them have bottomless pockets and the others who do not want to spend the kid's inheritance (like the Simon's) want help from the city. Show an independent accounting and fork out whatever it takes...but make it independent.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                I work and eat out every day of the week...almost always in Circle Center mall. So, I pay probably about $10/week. ...and I'm not one to have a problem paying for tickets but I'm actually the exception.

                                Anyway, my beef is with the system as a whole. I don't believe billionaires who pay men millions of dollars to play a boy's game should be asking for the middle class to fund their stadium....unless there is an independent accounting that it's worth it to the city. I wouldn't want the city to hand out money to Eli Lilly either...again, unless there was a provable ROI.

                                ...and no, I don't support running the team out of town. I would like them to stick around and adjust their financial model so they don't have to involve tax payers in their private business. Reduce player salaries if you need to. But they cave and fork out more and more money because some of them have bottomless pockets and the others who do not want to spend the kid's inheritance (like the Simon's) want help from the city. Show an independent accounting and fork out whatever it takes...but make it independent.
                                I think the Pacers did have an analysis done about what their impact was on the city and it made what they spent a very good deal...... If they raise enough revenue from the patches, perhaps they can do without city money. We won't know until we see the results....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X