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

Bill Simmons: Basement offer for Clips starts at $1.8B

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

  • #31
    Re: Bill Simmons: Basement offer for Clips starts at $1.8B

    Originally posted by bballpacen View Post
    I believe that I read somewhere that in the state of California, that when a sale is forced, capital gains taxes are not applicable?? Can anyone confirm this?? IF this is the case (and I would expect California to try to collect some how) then Sterling will really make out like a bandit...
    There is an argument to that effect: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-no-taxes.html

    the argument being that this is a forced sale or “involuntary conversion”

    but that would seem to be a difficult argument to make if Mrs. Sterling is negotiating amongst several people for a best offer, and can decide which one to take.

    It more applies to a situation in which your property is seized for eminent domain where you have no say in your compensation at all, just a 3rd party's estimate.

    The IRS and California would fight this tooth and nail, I'd think
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Bill Simmons: Basement offer for Clips starts at $1.8B

      Originally posted by travmil View Post

      The Clippers are not worth what they're worth because the people in that market can afford it.

      The Clippers will be worth what they're worth because many people seem to be willing to pay a very high price. Your right, it certainly matters zilch how many wealthy people are out there. It matters a huge amount, though, how many of those wealthy people are determined to bid against one another for a limited asset.

      A Picasso might be "worth" $1M dollars because it sold for that in one auction, but in another much more well-marketed auction a year or two later, that attracts a bunch of millionaires and billionaires eager to have a new toy on their wall, it may be "worth" $50M.
      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-27-2014, 10:07 AM.
      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Bill Simmons: Basement offer for Clips starts at $1.8B

        Originally posted by travmil View Post
        I'm trying to show why the assertion that wealth of potential buyers factors into the value of a franchise is false. Customer funds is not a factor that has input into the value of any commodity on the open market. We're talking basic Econ 101 stuff here.

        The Clippers are not worth what they're worth because the people in that market can afford it. Anyone who could buy the Los Angeles Clippers for $1.8 billion could buy almost any professional sports team in the world in any league. Does that make them all worth $1.8 billion?
        If they sold for $1.8 billion, then yeah, they would be worth $1.8 billion.

        I am not for a single second buying that the Clippers are going to sell so high because the people in the LA market can afford it. A huge part of the reason they will sell high is the market that they are in, but these people looking to buy the team are certainly not all locals to the LA area.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Bill Simmons: Basement offer for Clips starts at $1.8B

          Originally posted by travmil View Post
          I bet. You probably cut the guy in the Chevette a break on price right? Ya know since the prices you charge for things vary based on customer income?
          Well, you misread what I wrote, or I didn't explain myself very well. If lots of folks have lots of money, things like this are worth more because people can afford to pay. I wouldn't change the price based on one person driving the Chevette, but if everyone who stopped by drove a Chevette I'd have to or I'd starve.

          Basically the $1500 item went to the Chevette driver, the $15,000 item went to the Mercedes driver. And of course the man or woman driving the Chevette could be wealthy but since what I sold was partly a status indicator, what they drove had a pretty strong correlation.
          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Bill Simmons: Basement offer for Clips starts at $1.8B

            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
            There is an argument to that effect: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-no-taxes.html

            the argument being that this is a forced sale or “involuntary conversion”

            but that would seem to be a difficult argument to make if Mrs. Sterling is negotiating amongst several people for a best offer, and can decide which one to take.

            It more applies to a situation in which your property is seized for eminent domain where you have no say in your compensation at all, just a 3rd party's estimate.

            The IRS and California would fight this tooth and nail, I'd think
            Yes - I would think this only applies if it's the government forcing the sale. I can't see federal or state officials allowing the NBA to deprive them of millions of $$$.
            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Bill Simmons: Basement offer for Clips starts at $1.8B

              Originally posted by travmil View Post
              I'm trying to show why the assertion that wealth of potential buyers factors into the value of a franchise is false. Customer funds is not a factor that has input into the value of any commodity on the open market. We're talking basic Econ 101 stuff here.

              The Clippers are not worth what they're worth because the people in that market can afford it. Anyone who could buy the Los Angeles Clippers for $1.8 billion could buy almost any professional sports team in the world in any league. Does that make them all worth $1.8 billion?
              The NBA really isn't the open market though. It's a very closed, and narrow market, due to the extreme funds needed in order to partake. This is an auction, and auctions are won by the person willing, and able, to spend the most.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Bill Simmons: Basement offer for Clips starts at $1.8B

                We're talking about the dfference between value and price. You can pay whatever you want for something as long as you have the ability to do so. But that doesn't mean it's worth what you paid or makes any financial sense to do so.

                To put it another way, I'm trying to remove any emotion from determining the value and only going with a strict dollars and cents definition. In terms of ability to generate income, the Clippers are only going to be worth so much. One buyer may say "I can pay such and such and still make such and such amount of money" and that's what they are using to determine value to them. A different buyer can say "I can afford such and such and even if I lose money I don't care because I'm rich and this is my fun hobby" and that's how value is determined to them. But does any of that really change what the franchise is actually worth? Not worth to a given buyer, but worth to all buyers?
                Last edited by travmil; 05-27-2014, 11:06 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Bill Simmons: Basement offer for Clips starts at $1.8B

                  Whatever the pricetag someone pays on something, is the price and value it's worth, to them. We can play semantics about the difference between the two, but at the end of the day, the selling price trumps all of it, and the selling price is most definately tied to the hip of the buyer's net worth.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Bill Simmons: Basement offer for Clips starts at $1.8B

                    Originally posted by travmil View Post
                    I'm trying to show why the assertion that wealth of potential buyers factors into the value of a franchise is false. Customer funds is not a factor that has input into the value of any commodity on the open market. We're talking basic Econ 101 stuff here.

                    The Clippers are not worth what they're worth because the people in that market can afford it. Anyone who could buy the Los Angeles Clippers for $1.8 billion could buy almost any professional sports team in the world in any league. Does that make them all worth $1.8 billion?
                    A sports franchise is a limited edition luxury item - there is no fixed value. Its price will be based on perceived value(desirability), scarcity, and competition for that item.

                    That's not limited just to luxury items. Any item for which there is competition is subject to price variance based on the level of that competition. One of those factors is how much people are able to pay.

                    More troubling in your statement, if someone is actually teaching this, is that customer funds absolutely do play a role in the value of standard commodities in the open market. Oil prices have not followed supply for a very long time. It has been seen as an investment opportunity which has been favorable relative to stocks and other investments. That market has often bee counter-indicative to the supply. Here in the Midwest farmland prices have drastically spiked over the past decade. Now part of that is because crop prices have gone up but a larger reason is because, combined with the low cost of ownership due to low interest rates, more people with lots of money(these are doctors and lawyers, not farmers) have entered that market as it has been seen as a favorable investment. If all of those people had stuck with stocks, land prices wouldn't be where they are right now.

                    I'm not sure where you're coming up with this stuff. It's just plain wrong.

                    Edit: I'm beginning to think you're confusing appraisal value with true value. These are two different things.
                    Last edited by DisplacedKnick; 05-27-2014, 11:37 AM.
                    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Bill Simmons: Basement offer for Clips starts at $1.8B

                      In 1996, "Tickle Me Elmo" was worth upwards of $100 to people who (irrationally) wanted it badly but couldn't find any in stock, and so when they did see one on the secondary/resale market, they acted crazy.

                      In the 1970s, a rock in a cardboard box with a funny "instruction manual for the care of your pet rock" was worth something like 5 bucks, if I recall correctly, to a few million buyers.

                      Such purchases maybe were not wise, but deciding what something is worth at any point in time, in any other way besides the cost it happens to be selling for, makes no sense at all.
                      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Bill Simmons: Basement offer for Clips starts at $1.8B

                        As I said above, whoever buys the Clippers can pay whatever they want. But the Clippers are only gonna generate so much money on an annual basis. If you pay $1.8 billion and then lose money, you had better hope you justified your purchase in other areas. I've already said I'm basing MY valuation of what I think the Clippers are worth on a dollars and cents perspective. I'd have to make money to justify spending that. But then again, I don't have $1.8 billion laying around and fully admit that if I did that would change the way I feel about it. Most of the time anyone who has $1.8 billion laying around has another $1.8 billion laying right next to it so losign money, at least for a while, isn't going to worry them as much as it would me.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Bill Simmons: Basement offer for Clips starts at $1.8B

                          I think the new CBA has increased the value of all franchises, and the new TV deal has boosted the value of the Clippers specifically. I think there's also a line of thinking that the Clippers have survived one of the worst ownership interests in the league; imagine what they could do in the hands of a skilled front office. That is also boosting the price.

                          If you view an NBA franchise as an investment vehicle, I think that you would not have a bead on the head space of the people who are buying said franchise. I believe that the buyers do view the franchise as a sound investment, in that it will appreciate over time, but the primary purpose of purchasing a team is the ability to say that you own a team. To that end, the Clippers should be worth much more than the Bucks. If you own the Bucks, you're likely going to have to hemorrhage money in order to field a team that is a contender every year. If you own the Clippers, those increased revenue streams makes it much more likely that you will be able to hunt for a title every year while still turning a profit.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Bill Simmons: Basement offer for Clips starts at $1.8B

                            The reason for the increase is the DVR, live sports are the only thing people are watching live so the adds are far more valuable to them. NCIS may be the number 1 show on TV but a big chunk of the audience records it and fast forwards through the commercials. There is just something about a live sporting event that people want to watch it while its one and not on delay.

                            I am the biggest DVR nut there is, I have no idea when my favorite shows are on, I watch them all while fast forwarding through commercials but you can bet your bottom dollar that I get up early on Sunday mornings when there is an F1 race to watch it live and the same goes for the Pacers I record them but mainly to prevent the DVR from changing the channel on me, I watch them live.

                            This puts the NBA in the drivers seat big time, add to that the youngest audience of any of the major sports and the NBA is worth more than ever. The new TV deal is going to be huge for the NBA and thats why the prices for teams is going through the roof.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Bill Simmons: Basement offer for Clips starts at $1.8B

                              Why are we splitting hairs on this issue? Billionaires are going to start a bidding war on this team and it's going to sell for a ing ton of money. Whether it's "worth" it or not doesn't matter at all. It's going to sell.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X