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

Any conceivable way we bring back both Lance and Danny ?

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

  • #46
    Re: Any conceivable way we bring back both Lance and Danny ?

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    I don't doubt that they lose money during the season. I would say that get their money based off the value of the franchise, which isn't liquid money.

    You're asking good questions Bill, but my question is simple: Why should I spend my hard earned money on a franchise that isn't willing to do what takes in order to get a ring? If this is just a hobby, and not something worth going for the hardware, then that's fine but I'm going to go invest my time and money somewhere that is willing to take me the full way home, instead of dropping me off at the entrance to my neighborhood.
    By the same token, if the team can't sell out in a year where they are kicking the crap out of everyone, why should Herb go that extra mile?

    Remember, I'm one of the guys that thinks going over the first LT threshold for less than the repeat offender period should be acceptable - though given the length of contract Lance wants, that also might not be easy to do (look! An original topic reference! ). But, if I'm Herb and I remember the PR piling on I got the last time, and I have to go to the city again after having voluntarily thrown away a league subsidy in exchange for no more tickets being sold, that's a huge amount of thinking I have to do.
    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


    • #47
      Re: Any conceivable way we bring back both Lance and Danny ?

      Originally posted by docpaul View Post
      I'm sure Mel wants to enjoy some of the Russian's money in the next couple of years.
      See! You CAN take it with you!
      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


      • #48
        Re: Any conceivable way we bring back both Lance and Danny ?

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        By the same token, if the team can't sell out in a year where they are kicking the crap out of everyone, why should Herb go that extra mile.
        Because the point in owning a professional sports team is to win a professional championship? If winning isn't his goal and making money is, that's well within his rights, but I'd just like to know so I can make a better educated decision on whether or not I'll keep investing in the franchise.

        All this is purely hypothetical btw.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Any conceivable way we bring back both Lance and Danny ?

          Originally posted by docpaul View Post
          PS: Don't forget that exceeding the luxury tax line comes with the additional "cost" of losing the revenue share that the below cap teams receive. I'm sure Mel wants to enjoy some of the Russian's money in the next couple of years.
          I realized after writing this that the 2011 CBA changed some of these revenue sharing dynamics in a way that'd perhaps encourage small lapses into luxury tax territory.

          1) There's a more fundamental revenue sharing model that's based upon redistribution of 50% of all market revenues to smaller NBA markets, and this has nothing to do with the luxury tax. Last year for example, Indiana reportedly received almost $21 million additional dollars from this new program:

          http://www.grizzlybearblues.com/2012...agreement-2013

          2) The new CBA guarantees that no more than 50% of luxury tax proceeds go to teams under the tax. However, there's thought that teams slightly above the tax line can still receive payouts from this. Per Larry Coon:

          http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/...pares-last-one

          2005 CBA: Teams that did not pay tax each received 1/30th of the total tax fund. Taxpaying teams forfeited their tax distribution -- their money was used for "league purposes" such as the revenue-sharing program.

          2011 CBA: No more than 50 percent of the tax funds can go exclusively to teams that did not pay tax.

          Who benefits? The previous tax system created a "cliff" at the tax threshold -- a team that was $1 under the tax line received a full tax distribution (about $2.4 million in 2011), but a team that was $1 over the tax line didn't receive anything.

          Because of this cliff, teams needed to be very careful with their spending when they were near the tax threshold -- in fact, it looks like Houston was burned in 2011 by straying just $800,000 above the limit. The new system softens the blow for teams that exceed the tax line by just a little. For example, under the new system, Houston would have had to pay $800,000 in tax, but may have been eligible for a payout to offset their tax bill.

          However, while the new agreement stipulates that no more than 50 percent of the tax funds can go exclusively to teams that did not pay tax, it doesn't specify what happens to the other 50 percent. It is possible the remaining tax money will be distributed to all teams in equal shares, but it's also possible the NBA will reserve this money for "league purposes."
          So yeah, Since86, if we somehow get into this circumstance next offseason, start getting your anger on.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Any conceivable way we bring back both Lance and Danny ?

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Because the point in owning a professional sports team is to win a professional championship? If winning isn't his goal and making money is, that's well within his rights, but I'd just like to know so I can make a better educated decision on whether or not I'll keep investing in the franchise.

            All this is purely hypothetical btw.
            Understood.

            I'd understand if the Simons had not ever gone over the LT threshold before. But they did it back in the day - and the Pacers had one of the highest payrolls in the NBA - and were only ever able to get to the ECF (I believe the LT was not officially in effect for the 1999-2000 team so I don't count going to the finals. If I am incorrect then consider the statement amended accordingly). Therefore, the idea of a guarantee that if you pay the money you'll win the hardware has been disproven. It doesn't change the notion that NOT paying the money makes it VERY HARD to win the hardware, but it makes it much less of a no-brainer to pay the money and take your chances.

            As I said, I find it very hard to believe we wouldn't go into the first tier if we "missed it by that much", so to speak. I think this has to be one of the things Larry and Herb discussed when he came back. I think they may have looked at Larry's success at putting a team together and felt like they could essentially play Moneyball, meaning when the cheap player breaks out and isn't so cheap, you let him go and get a replacement. Clearly Roy and Paul are not replaceable, and it may just be that 3 max players (or even 2 max and multiple players making above the MLE) is not necessarily an automatic decision. I would hate to lose Lance after the work we put into believing in him, same as I would hate to lose Danny if it turns out he can still ball. But, the priorities have been set, and the question really is whether spending the money gives a better percentage chance of getting the trophy or if there are other (less expensive) alternatives.
            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


            • #51
              Re: Any conceivable way we bring back both Lance and Danny ?

              Is Herb really committed to a championship or simply providing this town with a franchise that significantly makes this town a more interesting and enjoyable place to live? Would Herb rather spend his money on Cancer centers, research buildings in Bloomington, and other buildings having significant worth than paying another ballplayer a fat salary?

              Just asking because we don't really know his priorities. Having an excellent team that does really well but not championship well may just be fine with him.

              He and his brother have made a real difference in Indy and not just in sports.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Any conceivable way we bring back both Lance and Danny ?

                Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                Is Herb really committed to a championship or simply providing this town with a franchise that significantly makes this town a more interesting and enjoyable place to live? Would Herb rather spend his money on Cancer centers, research buildings in Bloomington, and other buildings having significant worth than paying another ballplayer a fat salary?

                Just asking because we don't really know his priorities. Having an excellent team that does really well but not championship well may just be fine with him.

                He and his brother have made a real difference in Indy and not just in sports.
                We know they spent the money to go for the gusto before.

                However, we also know that they really only bought the team to keep it from being moved, and after a lot of pressure to do so. I have heard it said that Mel was more of a fan than Herb is - don't know how much more, but my understanding was that Mel had a lot of passion about it where Herb is more businesslike.

                We also know that the money was spent previously when the Pacers were The Hot Thing in Indianapolis. Not only have the Colts had bigger success since then, but Herb has to have felt kicked in the teeth by the 5 years from 2004-2009 as much as any Pacer fan. It may mean that the city needs to show passion (and not just pocketbook) to get him back to feeling a championship is worth spending more money on (and that ultimately it won't lose as much).
                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


                • #53
                  Re: Any conceivable way we bring back both Lance and Danny ?

                  In response to the idea of the owners losing money, here is an imperfect illustration.


                  Let's say I put $5,000 per year into a retirement account. Am I losing $5,000 per year? Of course not. When I retire I am going to have a fat sum of money waiting for me.

                  So even if an owner is in the red $10,000,000 per year, the value of his franchise is growing at a faster rate and he could cash out to get his money at any time.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Any conceivable way we bring back both Lance and Danny ?

                    Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
                    In response to the idea of the owners losing money, here is an imperfect illustration.


                    Let's say I put $5,000 per year into a retirement account. Am I losing $5,000 per year? Of course not. When I retire I am going to have a fat sum of money waiting for me.

                    So even if an owner is in the red $10,000,000 per year, the value of his franchise is growing at a faster rate and he could cash out to get his money at any time.
                    But if you're putting that 5k into losing stocks you have little to nothing. Certainly not exponential growth.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Any conceivable way we bring back both Lance and Danny ?

                      Emphasis on the word imperfect!! lol

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Any conceivable way we bring back both Lance and Danny ?

                        Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                        But if you're putting that 5k into losing stocks you have little to nothing. Certainly not exponential growth.
                        I'm guessing the value of NBA franchises has been at steady climb, if not steep.
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Any conceivable way we bring back both Lance and Danny ?

                          Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
                          In response to the idea of the owners losing money, here is an imperfect illustration.


                          Let's say I put $5,000 per year into a retirement account. Am I losing $5,000 per year? Of course not. When I retire I am going to have a fat sum of money waiting for me.

                          So even if an owner is in the red $10,000,000 per year, the value of his franchise is growing at a faster rate and he could cash out to get his money at any time.
                          Bingo. If Herb sold the team tomorrow he would make an enormous profit.

                          Herb bought the team in 1983 for 11 million dollars.

                          Today it is worth 383 million.
                          "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Any conceivable way we bring back both Lance and Danny ?

                            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                            I'm guessing the value of NBA franchises has been at steady climb, if not steep.
                            Which is my point.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Any conceivable way we bring back both Lance and Danny ?

                              Anything is conceivable...yes, it is possible to re-sign both Granger and Lance...but the cost is dumping one of the Starters for a huge expiring this season. So, is it possible, yes....is it likely? Nope.....we cannot clear enough capspace to get enough under the LT to be able to re-sign both of them. It comes down to one or the other....just pick one.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Any conceivable way we bring back both Lance and Danny ?

                                I think if Larry Bird were to go to Simon and say, we're definitely winning a championship if we spend $80m, and we definitely won't if we spend only $75m, then Simon wouldn't hesitate to pay "the cost of winning". But if Larry were to say, well, we maybe have a 10% chance to win it all with a $80m roster, but this chance drops to 8% with a $75m roster, then I think Simon is entitled to question why he should spend ~$10m more in luxury tax and lost revenue sharing for a marginal increase in the odds of winning. The thing is, just going over the tax presents a huge nonlinear jump in costs without proportionate increase in winning. If you look at the tax teams, they almost all go whole hog - no point in spending just a little bit over the tax, where there's a huge increase in cost for little return.

                                Anyway, IMO Larry will do what it takes to re-sign Lance. The only question is what other corners would need to be cut in order to make it work financially.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X