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

are sports teams worth the tax money?

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

  • are sports teams worth the tax money?

    They just came out with a study that says the Colts are worth over 100 million (I don't know the exact numbers) a year to the city. I'm never really confident in these kinds of studies. Then again, maybe pro sports are more important to a city like Indy because we don't have natural geographical wonders like mountains, oceans, etc. On the other hand, I've always thought of Seattle as an attractive city,but the fact that they have the Seahawks doesn't add anythng extra in my mind.


    Does anyone have any thoughts?

    edit: and if the Colts and Pacers sucked, would they be worth as much to a city? I wouldn't think so.

  • #2
    Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

    Originally posted by btowncolt
    That study is just propaganda the city is pumping into the Star to prepare people for just how much money they're about to have to pay when they announce the stadium deal shortly. I don't give any credence to it.
    That's my thinking also. It also contrasts the Pacers and the Colts as far as looking for handouts. Jim Irsay depends on the Colts for most of his income if I'm not mistaken, and this is the chief difference between the two franchises in my mind.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

      If they are not worth the money, why is it every time a city has a team move within a year or less the are trying to get another team.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

        The biggest thing with Pro Sports teams has less to do with the actual $$$ in revenue and more of the perception of being a "major" city - whatever that is.

        Pro teams generate a lot of headlines and gets the city's name in the news a lot. If Indy didn't have any major pro sports teams what would it be known for? The 500 and that's about it - the Black Expo, Heartland Film Festival, etc., don't matter to many people.

        Here's an example. Norfolk Virginia has a larger metro pop than Indy. What does the average American know about it? Maybe that they build ships.

        Columbus, OH is about the same size - what's distinctive about it?

        I don't know how you quantofy what it's worth to be a "major" city.
        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

          Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
          The biggest thing with Pro Sports teams has less to do with the actual $$$ in revenue and more of the perception of being a "major" city - whatever that is.

          Pro teams generate a lot of headlines and gets the city's name in the news a lot. If Indy didn't have any major pro sports teams what would it be known for? The 500 and that's about it - the Black Expo, Heartland Film Festival, etc., don't matter to many people.

          Here's an example. Norfolk Virginia has a larger metro pop than Indy. What does the average American know about it? Maybe that they build ships.

          Columbus, OH is about the same size - what's distinctive about it?

          I don't know how you quantofy what it's worth to be a "major" city.
          I agree that that's probably what our taxes are going for-- to be a "major city". But is our quality of life better that the cities you mentioned? (besides having something to do on sundays) I wonder. Don't get me wrong, I love sports, but being raked over the coals for more taxes every few years makes me curious if it's worth it, that's all.

          I also wonder if many people in other parts of the country think any more of us than say Columbus, Ohio, just because we have pro sports.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

            I don't see the need to justify the new stadium. They are going to build it anyway. Besides, several months ago they announced a $1,000,000,000 (that's billion) deal with NCAA for X number of Final Four games to be held in Indy. It was felt by many at the time that was enough justification to pay for the new stadium. They don't play at COnseco ya know.
            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

              Irsay is one reason I have become less and less of a Colts fan over the years. Threatening to relocate when that city supported such a bad team for so long is really wrong to me.

              My father, who worked for the city, would have laughed at the notion of the Star doing anything for the city government--of couse at that time it was a Rep. mayor.

              As to the question of the thread I do believe that a sports team adds prestige to a city making it easier to draw young professionals, gives the city a feeling of community and generally generates only good PR in the national media--unless there is a brawl.
              "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

              "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

                Building a new stadium is NOT like building a new school within your school district.

                You build a new school, or do major improvements to existing ones, and locally you float bonds to pay for the project. And the money that pays for those bonds typically is passed directly to the local taxpayers.

                However, you build a new stadium, the process, at least historically, has been different. Some is paid for by local contributions. For example, naming rights to the stadium. Also, the Lilly Endowment. You still float bonds to cover the cost of the project. But some of the bonds are paid through tax revenues by the local government.

                But, again at least historically, the majority of funds covering the bonds comes from a surcharge on dining and entertainment establishments. The surcharge ranges from 1 - 2%. That's $2 per every $100 that you spend on eating out to cover the biggest portion of building a new stadium.

                To me, that's not much to pay. And, if you still don't like it, then reduce your average tip by 2% and you will come out even.

                The only thing that would change this scenario would be if the new stadium is financed much differently than MSA, Conseco and the Dome.

                But the idea behind behind a majority of the cost being paid for by the surcharge is that even visitors to the city would then help finance the project. Also, the surcharge is on dining out, hotels and entertainment... each viewed as a luxury item and not a necessity. Therefore, those indulging in these pursuits are likely to be the ones that can better afford their expense.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

                  It's more like trying to keep a really terrific symphony in your city. If you're a city worth your salt, you have a symphony orchestra. Neither a pro sports team or a symphony is ever going to make money for the city, but it does help provide a place where people really want to live. More like building a park than a school.

                  What I find really offensive about most sports franchises (as opposed to symphonies or parks) is that in order to get one, cities have to give hundreds of millions of dollars, for free, to a billionaire. That really chaps me. If I remember correctly, the city of Green Bay is the only municipality to own its team. And that is one damn fine franchise. The owners outlawed it, because they didn't want other cities to get in on the act. They wanted their free millions, and for some reason, no city has ever taken them to court to try to break the trust.

                  PS It was one of those $100 million city giveaways that earned GW his millions. Boo.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

                    Why do people have to be forced into paying for a stadium?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

                      Well, the theory is that it benefits the entire population - even the ones that don't use it.

                      Now as for "forced", well its a free country, if you aren't interested in reaping the benefits of living in a major city and refuse to contribute to the infrastructure necessary to make a major city, then don't live in a major city.

                      I couldn't stand the idea of living someplace that doesn't have a professsional basketball team. Yes, I realize I've been living in Chicago for the past five NBA seasons. That's not the point.
                      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                      And life itself, rushing over me
                      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

                        Originally posted by Manuel
                        Why do people have to be forced into paying for a stadium?
                        Why do you have to be forced into paying for a Police Force? Or a Street Department? Or a park?
                        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

                          Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
                          Why do you have to be forced into paying for a Police Force? Or a Street Department? Or a park?

                          Not the same thing at all. Safety, public service, and free access to green space are nothing like a sports stadium.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

                            Cities give tax breaks, build roads and other benefits to other buisness so that they will move to or stay in a city.
                            "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                            "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

                              Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                              Well, the theory is that it benefits the entire population - even the ones that don't use it.

                              Now as for "forced", well its a free country, if you aren't interested in reaping the benefits of living in a major city and refuse to contribute to the infrastructure necessary to make a major city, then don't live in a major city.

                              I couldn't stand the idea of living someplace that doesn't have a professsional basketball team. Yes, I realize I've been living in Chicago for the past five NBA seasons. That's not the point.
                              How exactly does it benefit the entire population?

                              I will gladly contribute freely, by working and producing products and services that people want to buy, not by being taxed so that someone else can benefit at my expense. This sounds nothing like you Jay, the people are being taxed and others(probably people that already rich) are unfairly benefitting from it.

                              Could the funds necessary to build a stadium not be raised privately?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X