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

BREAKING: Pacers reach deal with Indianapolis

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

  • #46
    Re: BREAKING: Pacers reach deal with Indianapolis

    Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
    How about the City shouldn't have to pay a team that has sold out 28 games? Seems absurd.

    They give them the profits from the Bankers Life Fieldhouse, let them get all revenue from events, and pay $1 in rent a year.

    Why can't the multi billionaire owner pay for any of this?

    If the Pacers aren't making heaps of money from this year without any subsidies, they are doing something horribly wrong.

    I wish there was some provision that if the team reaches a performance standard, the subsidies are not paid in that year.
    Let me put this in perspective, Miguel Cabrera's latest deal with the Tigers is 10 years, $292 million. The city of Indianapolis gets to keep the entire Pacers franchise and keep them happy for 10 years for basically 55% of the cost.

    Also, acting like the Simons have not invested in this city and this team over the past 30 years is completely ridiculous and baseless.


    Comment


    • #47
      Re: BREAKING: Pacers reach deal with Indianapolis

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      The Pacers have seemed hell bent on trying to "get theirs" ever since Ir$ay fleeced the city.
      You don't become a billionaire sports owner by being bad at this sort of thing.

      Honestly, this is a good deal for Indy. The lease is fair market value and they have the right to retain the team is something catastrophic happens to Herb. That is worth something right there. No out of town buyers can come in and take the team out from under our noses unless the city chooses to let them do it. That is an important thing for the city to have.

      I understand the points being made about other issues in the city, believe me I do, but if we had a nice new prison, but lost the Pacers how many of you would maybe go the other way? It's a tough thing to balance. The Pacers and Colts hold a lot of leverage in this city (and rightfully so IMO), it is an undeniable fact that Indy would still be a drop in the **** pot if not for these two franchises.


      I don't know how many of you know this, but I own and maintain office buildings for a living. We have all sorts of ages in our portfolio, from 40 year old buildings to the newest spec building in Indianapolis, **** costs money to maintain. By the end of this deal, BLF will be 25 years old. The Bradley Center (which is a pile of crap held together by concrete) is 26 years old right now, and it is a pile of crap held together by concrete because the owner and the city have refused to invest in it. At least Simon has thrown down some of his own dough for BLF, that badass jumbotron and the new sound system weren't free (or cheap)
      Last edited by Trader Joe; 04-11-2014, 01:58 PM.


      Comment


      • #48
        Re: BREAKING: Pacers reach deal with Indianapolis

        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
        Let me put this in perspective, Miguel Cabrera's latest deal with the Tigers is 10 years, $292 million. The city of Indianapolis gets to keep the entire Pacers franchise and keep them happy for 10 years for basically 55% of the cost.

        Also, acting like the Simons have not invested in this city and this team over the past 30 years is completely ridiculous and baseless.
        We are comparing a ridiculous baseball contract to what exactly? What a weird comparison.

        When did I say the Simons didn't do anything for the city?
        There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: BREAKING: Pacers reach deal with Indianapolis

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          The scoreboard itself was paid for outside the upgrades being done by the CIB money.
          How so? The Pacers approached the city to renegotiate the deal and as part of the temporary deal that was made, upgrades to facility and specifically scoreboard was part of that deal.
          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: BREAKING: Pacers reach deal with Indianapolis

            Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
            We are comparing a ridiculous baseball contract to what exactly? What a weird comparison.

            When did I say the Simons didn't do anything for the city?
            1.) I'm just making the point that sports is expensive and all things considered we get a pretty good value out of the money we put into the Pacers.

            2.) You said "Why can't the multi billionaire owner pay for any of this?" maybe you didn't mean it that way but to me it came off a little unfair in the sense that the Simons have already done quite a bit for this city and this franchise.


            Comment


            • #51
              Re: BREAKING: Pacers reach deal with Indianapolis

              I'm 90% sure that when the jumbotron and sound systems was installed it was reported that Simon wrote a check for ~$15million out of his own pocket, but I may be wrong.


              Comment


              • #52
                Re: BREAKING: Pacers reach deal with Indianapolis

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                I'm 90% sure that when the jumbotron and sound systems was installed it was reported that Simon wrote a check for ~$15million out of his own pocket, but I may be wrong.
                That's what I remember.

                Upgrades were part of the plan, but Simon paid for the complete replacement portion of the center scoreboard.

                The original CIB $33M was for more than just upgrades. It was to include the facility operation costs and losses as well as upgrades to the other parts of the infrastructure.

                No, Simon didn't pay for every part of the upgrade, but the completely new huge scoreboard was over and above what the CIB was paying for.
                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: BREAKING: Pacers reach deal with Indianapolis

                  I'm just glad that we don't have to worry about the team leaving Indianapolis for a long time. I hate corporate welfare, but there are much more egregious examples than this everywhere if one cares to look
                  Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: BREAKING: Pacers reach deal with Indianapolis

                    This type of corporate welfare will not end until the federal government takes an interest in stopping it nationwide. What is finally going to happen if something isn't done is cities will eventually be footing every bill, including player salaries, except the purchase price of the team.

                    So owners will buy the rights to a team, its logos, control, etc.... and then eventually the highest bidder will pay all of the operating costs just to get that team/logo in their town. Just like it has snowballed to this point.

                    That might sound far-fetched, but 100 years ago it would've sounded far-fetched to say a city would build an arena and then lease it to a tenant for 1$ per yr and let the tenant keep 100% of the revenue generated on any events. Let alone naming rights and other advertising revenue.
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: BREAKING: Pacers reach deal with Indianapolis

                      Originally posted by Bball View Post
                      let the tenant keep 100% of the revenue generated on any events. Let alone naming rights and other advertising revenue.
                      Yeah, except for the taxes you pay for the tickets, parking, food, beer, merchandise, etc.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: BREAKING: Pacers reach deal with Indianapolis

                        Originally posted by Bball View Post
                        This type of corporate welfare will not end until the federal government takes an interest in stopping it nationwide. What is finally going to happen if something isn't done is cities will eventually be footing every bill, including player salaries, except the purchase price of the team.

                        So owners will buy the rights to a team, its logos, control, etc.... and then eventually the highest bidder will pay all of the operating costs just to get that team/logo in their town. Just like it has snowballed to this point.

                        That might sound far-fetched, but 100 years ago it would've sounded far-fetched to say a city would build an arena and then lease it to a tenant for 1$ per yr and let the tenant keep 100% of the revenue generated on any events. Let alone naming rights and other advertising revenue.
                        Not to get too political, but the federal government should mind their own damn business in this situation. This is exactly what local government is for.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: BREAKING: Pacers reach deal with Indianapolis

                          Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                          Not to get too political, but the federal government should mind their own damn business in this situation. This is exactly what local government is for.
                          The federal government is there to keep the local governments in check if the local governments start to run amuck. If the vast majority of people are against it, but the local governments still do it I would hope the federal government would step in and fixes things because that is their job. The problem with our system right now is that the federal government acts when there is no solid consensus. 51% isn't enough of a majority to make something a nation wide law. If you can't get more than 66% of people agreeing it should be handled at the state and local level.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: BREAKING: Pacers reach deal with Indianapolis

                            Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                            Not to get too political, but the federal government should mind their own damn business in this situation. This is exactly what local government is for.
                            No, I think this is the opposite. It is exactly where the federal government should be involved. They have the power to level the field for local governments in this case. Otherwise, every state and city is always going to be competing with the next state and city for these shiny bobbles for their own community. They've already shown they don't have much restraint. It's "We have to give X+Y because another city is already offering X!!!". And since it is taxpayer money it's a nearly bottomless pit for politicians to dive into that they can push off the bottom line into the future where they assume they will have a rosey enough outlook and growth that it won't seem that bad. But of course before that point ever comes it's time for a new arena and new round of bargaining that gives these sports team owners even more leverage to ask for even more. And when they don't get it, there's always a new city that will go the extra mile. Except they normally get it. And when they don't the old city suddenly ups the ante they will have available to chase another city's team. And so the cycle has no end except ultimately communities paying every operating expense of a team with no stake in ownership.

                            And therein lies the problem. There's no stopping it.

                            Anyone who has ever dealt with a local government, when that local government is doing something it wants to do, knows they will find a way to write the check. At least until they are flat broke and everyone has moved away so there's nobody left to tax and no hope of finding new business creation in a ghost town.
                            Last edited by Bball; 04-11-2014, 06:16 PM.
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

                            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: BREAKING: Pacers reach deal with Indianapolis

                              So far it's OK, but please try to keep on the topic of this particular situation - this is not a politics board...
                              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


                              • #60
                                Re: BREAKING: Pacers reach deal with Indianapolis

                                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                                The federal government is there to keep the local governments in check if the local governments start to run amuck. If the vast majority of people are against it, but the local governments still do it I would hope the federal government would step in and fixes things because that is their job. The problem with our system right now is that the federal government acts when there is no solid consensus. 51% isn't enough of a majority to make something a nation wide law. If you can't get more than 66% of people agreeing it should be handled at the state and local level.
                                I could've saved myself a lot of typing if I'd read this before I posted....
                                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                                ------

                                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                                -John Wooden

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X