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

Entourage Economics - WSJ

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

  • Entourage Economics - WSJ

    Not sure if this has been posted. Read the last 5-6 paragraphs for details on Ron Artest's entourage. I enjoyed the snake eggs story.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120787358981806577.html

    Entourage Economics

    Wall Street Journal
    By HANNAH KARP


    As welterweight boxing champion Floyd Mayweather showered fans with fistfuls of $100 bills two weeks ago at the Hard Rock Cafe in Times Square, seven men, some in sunglasses, shadowed his every move. But this wasn't the stereotypical athlete posse, best known for freeloading and waking up at noon.
    Mr. Mayweather's right-hand man, Leonard Ellerbe, is chief executive of a $140 million company, Mayweather Promotions, and starts his days at 5:15 a.m. Underperforming security guards, personal assistants and coordinators can be fired for offenses like ogling women or falling out of shape. "It's no different than working for Xerox," Mr. Ellerbe says.

    Troublemakers, sycophants and hangers-on, your days are numbered. Athletes are turning the entourage -- once a big punch line in sports -- from liability to asset. Taking a page from veterans who have learned the hard way and from peers like 23-year-old LeBron James, whose self-started marketing company employs his three friends, players across the sports world are using a range of management tactics to eke the most profit and productivity out of their support systems.

    Carmelo Anthony, the 23-year-old small forward for the Denver Nuggets, has a flowchart and presides over biannual meetings of the 10 members of "Team Melo." Skier Bode Miller, 30, chalks up his World Cup victory this year to his new, hand-picked group of coaches, agents, trainers and family he calls "Team America." (It includes his best friend as his personal chef.) Oscar de la Hoya is saving nearly $400,000 a year in food, housing and travel expenses after dropping 10 entourage members, mostly good friends. One charged an additional $2,500 every time they went to a public event, with as many as 30 events a year.

    "It was a waste of time and a waste of money," says Mr. de la Hoya, who still employs some 50 people but keeps only his CEO, COO and vice president by his side. He does miss the fashion tips. "Sometimes my friends tell me, 'Man, you don't look so good.'"

    Entourages have gotten a bad reputation. Cornerback Adam "Pacman" Jones was suspended from football last year after a series of incidents; in one, at a Las Vegas strip club, a man witnesses assumed to be in Mr. Jones's entourage fired shots that left another man paralyzed below the waist. Mr. Jones's lawyer, Robert Langford, says the shooter was not with his client. "If you're a famous person and you show up with two friends and then 10 people start hanging around you, all of a sudden it's your 'entourage,'" he says. Indiana Pacers point guard Jamaal Tinsley and his six-man, three-car crew were shot at in December on their way from a nightclub by a group that was harassing them about how much money they had, according to police. And in baseball, entourages have come under scrutiny for administering performance-enhancing drugs. Commissioner Bud Selig banned personal trainers from the clubhouse and other team facilities in 2002, and he stepped up enforcement in 2004.
    Outside of sports, M.C. Hammer filed for bankruptcy in 1996 after his 200-person entourage squandered the better part of his $30 million fortune.

    Yet athletes and agents say a support system can be a necessity. Athletes are constantly asked for money. Some have grown wary of doing business with strangers, after bad experiences. Even mundane tasks, such as going to the supermarket, can be a challenge.

    Sports agent Leigh Steinberg advises his younger clients to surround themselves with friends, if not security, in any place where alcohol is served. "While 90% of people are friendly and benign, 10% will be at some point of intoxication and may become belligerent and decide they can take on a gifted athlete," he says. Cellphone cameras have turned every outing into potential tabloid event. "Every time someone is approached by a female, it can become a picture anywhere and become a questionable situation. Having people around to fend off unwanted advances is helpful," he says.

    Just fielding ticket requests can get tricky. The NBA allows players four tickets per home game and two per away game, while the NFL grants two free tickets per home game and none away. John McCareins, father and financial adviser to the Tennessee Titans' wide receiver Justin McCareins, says relatives often show up out of nowhere, announce they'd like to come to the game and that "'oh, there'll be 14 of us.' These tickets are $80 a piece, and that comes out of his paycheck," Mr. McCareins says. "Now all ticket requests go through me."

    The rise of the entourage is fairly recent. Allen Sack, director of the Institute for Sport Management at the University of New Haven, recalls that after defensive tackle Alan Page was drafted to the Minnesota Vikings in 1967, he worked in a car dealership for a summer. That year, the average salary for football, basketball, baseball and hockey combined was $20,000. In 1980 players in all four sports were making just over $100,000, on average, and it wasn't until 1995 that the average NBA salary cracked $1 million. Now, players make an average of $5.4 million in basketball, $3 million in baseball and $1.4 million in football.

    The economics vary widely. Veteran sports attorney Fallasha Erwin says he's seen athletes give their friends lump-sum payments of as much as $100,000. But as athletes discover those types of payments can't easily be written off their taxes, more are putting their qualified friends on professional payrolls. Salaried entourage members doing personal-assistant work typically earn $30,000 to $50,000 a year, plus a percentage of any deals they put together. Indiana Pacers forward Danny Granger, 24, has an economical one-man team -- his former college roommate -- who pays his own rent and will make $40,000 this year.

    One cost-cutting strategy: recruiting freelancers as needed. Raiders linebacker Thomas Howard says he financially supports only his mother but likes to have at least two guys with him when he goes to nightclubs to provide security, get a table and make sure the ratio of women to men is satisfactory before he walks in the door. Once there, Mr. Howard pays for the table and bottle service and for small favors. One night last month, he gave one of his freelancers $5 to fetch him a Snickers bar.

    Mike Bibby of the Atlanta Hawks, who calls his 20-member clan "Team Dime," says his "family first" policy fosters loyalty. He lets one member, 30-year-old Matt Nielsen, commute from Sacramento, Calif., in order to spend time with his 3-year-old son and girlfriend, who couldn't quit her job when Mr. Bibby was traded to the Hawks midseason. "I take my job seriously, and I feel guilty for not being here," says Mr. Nielsen.

    Childhood friend Jeremiah Johnson's job includes coaching Mr. Bibby's 10-year-old son, making sure Mr. Bibby gets to appearances on time and taking orders from Mr. Bibby's mother, Virginia, who runs the show from her home in Phoenix. "We're not here to hang out and party, we're here to make him go," he says.

    One of the keys to successful management, athletes say, is designating a supervisor. For a fight in May, Mr. de la Hoya assigned his longtime friend and vice president Raul Jaimes "to do the dirty work," which includes renting homes for the nutritionist, trainers and makeup artists, coordinating transportation and making sure the chef has all his equipment. "I'm glad it's not my job," Mr. de la Hoya says.

    Ron Artest, small forward for the Sacramento Kings, recently asked his publicist and executive assistant to set up a summer basketball camp in Beijing and find the best kidney-tumor specialist in the world for his 4-year-old daughter, Diamond. Mr. Artest's personal assistant, who grew up with him in the projects but is paid by Mr. Artest's management company, fields late-night requests for organic cookies, is developing Mr. Artest's line of athletic wear and was asked recently to remove what Mr. Artest thought were giant snake eggs in his backyard. They turned out to be mushrooms.

    "There are so many people that have figured out how to get money from athletes legally that when you have friends that you think might be capable of doing something, your first instinct is to give them a shot," says Mr. Artest, 28, who taught himself to do his own taxes and accounting several years ago using Quicken, after a series of bad experiences with professionals. (His business-management agency now handles his accounting.)

    But last year, he realized that six of his friends, who were living in a four-bedroom house he was leasing for them at $2,500 a month, could jeopardize his career if any trouble occurred at the house. While the six -- all producers and artists on his record label -- also did odd jobs from time to time for Mr. Artest, "their level of helpfulness was 50%," says his publicist, Heidi Buech. He sent home four of them in March 2007 and dismissed the last two in July, after the house was broken into while he was doing charity work in Africa.

    Mr. Artest's friends say they have no hard feelings. "If there was a time it was real hard for me, I know I could ask him for help, but it's all about growing up," says Lamont Mena, 26, who goes by "Challace" and now works for John Deere in Indianapolis.

    Naquan White, known as "Ruc," now has a job at an accessories company and still works with Mr. Artest on his music career. "Ron has always been there for me," he says. "Ron lives in a fantasy world, but you've got to come back to reality."

    Mr. Artest says he doesn't regret the opportunities he was able to give his friends. However, he adds, he did learn one lesson: "I wasn't running it as a business, as it should have been run."



    The only reason I pasted the link in here is because you are new, next time the article goes, see the rules. (A)

  • #2
    Re: Entourage Economics - WSJ

    You need to list a link to the article or I will have to take this down. Thanks.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Entourage Economics - WSJ

      Here's the link:

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120787358981806577.html

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Entourage Economics - WSJ

        granger might be teh smartest athlete lol. do these guys really need to hand around 20 people???

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Entourage Economics - WSJ

          was asked recently to remove what Mr. Artest thought were giant snake eggs in his backyard. They turned out to be mushrooms.
          Remember that skit Chappelle did about Cribs where he was cooking rare dino eggs?

          Also the shrooms would explain quite a lot.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Entourage Economics - WSJ

            I almost feel bad for Danny. One guy? He makes 40K? Jesus. We're talking about a kid who will in all likelihood sign a 60mil contract this summer (probably more).

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Entourage Economics - WSJ

              I think Granger needs to give him a raise

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Entourage Economics - WSJ

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                I think Granger needs to give him a raise
                Considering Danny's looming ten million dollar raise, I think you will see his buddy get a raise soon enough.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Entourage Economics - WSJ

                  I can understand Granger only needing one person at this point in his career. For one thing he is a guy that seems to lay low anyway, for another thing with interest in the Pacers at an all time low I bet he doesn't get harassed too, too much in public. He's not really an NBA superstar yet and I bet he doesn't get recognized too much outside of Indy.

                  Dude will get his raise in the offseason, I'm sure. Danny's still on his rookie deal, after all.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Entourage Economics - WSJ

                    Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                    I almost feel bad for Danny. One guy? He makes 40K? Jesus. We're talking about a kid who will in all likelihood sign a 60mil contract this summer (probably more).
                    Danny has another year yet before that happens.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Entourage Economics - WSJ

                      Let's not overlook the fact that Mike Bibby has a friend named Jeremiah Johnson.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Entourage Economics - WSJ

                        Giant snake eggs? I've been looking for some of those. Have Ron give me a call.
                        The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Entourage Economics - WSJ

                          I thought this was going to be about Jeremy Piven describing the miraculousness of the playoffs again.

                          Meanwhile, someone in the NBA has got to have a Wu Tang Clan.
                          You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X