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

New York Times : Silna Deal Settlement is near (AFFECTS THE PACERS)

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

  • New York Times : Silna Deal Settlement is near (AFFECTS THE PACERS)

    In fact, as early as today:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/sp...ef=sports&_r=0
    Richard Sandomir
    New York Times
    The N.B.A. has long hoped to be released from its financial obligation to Ozzie and Daniel Silna, brothers who owned the Spirits of St. Louis in the defunct American Basketball Association.

    But it has never been easy. The Spirits were excluded from the 1976 merger of the two leagues. So the Silnas watched unhappily as the New York (now Brooklyn) Nets, the Denver Nuggets, the Indiana Pacers and the San Antonio Spurs were absorbed into the N.B.A. But the Silnas negotiated an astonishing benefit that was critical to the merger: an agreement to be paid one-seventh of the national television revenue that each of the four teams was to receive, as long as the league continued to exist. That amounted to being paid in perpetuity, and so far, the deal has provided the Silnas with about $300 million.

    Their deal is as much a part of A.B.A. history as red, white and blue basketballs, the 3-point line and the big Afros of Julius Erving and Darnell Hillman. It is a lasting memory of how, through luck or prescience, the Silnas and their lawyer, Donald Schupak, capitalized on the league’s growing popularity.

    The N.B.A. has tried to buy them out, including an effort before the financial crash in 2008. Negotiations have picked up in the last six to nine months.

    On Tuesday, the Silnas, the league and the four former A.B.A. teams will announce a conditional deal that will end the Silnas’ golden annuity. Almost.

    The Silnas are to receive a $500 million upfront payment, financed through a private placement of notes by JPMorgan Chase and Merrill Lynch, according to three people with direct knowledge of the agreement. The deal would end the enormous perpetual payments and settle a lawsuit filed in federal court by the Silnas that demanded additional compensation from sources of television revenue that did not exist in 1976, including NBA TV, foreign broadcasting of games and League Pass, the service that lets fans watch out-of-market games.

    Still, the league is not getting rid of the Silnas altogether. They will continue to get some television revenue, some of it from the disputed sources named in their lawsuit, through a new partnership that is to be formed with the Nets, the Pacers, the Nuggets and the Spurs, according to the people with knowledge of the agreement. But at some point, the Silnas can be bought out of their interest in the partnership.

    The Silnas, of course, did not have to settle. They could have continued to make money from the N.B.A., without ever having to invest in players or build an arena. Clearly, their old agreement would have to be honored as long as the N.B.A. continued to exist.

    But there is a reluctance, more by Daniel, 69, than Ozzie, 80, to keep fighting the league, said one of the people who discussed the agreement. Although wealthy people often plan their estates, much of the Silnas’ riches from the N.B.A. is already in family trusts.

    Bob Costas, the NBC sportscaster who called Spirits games, said in a telephone interview, “My guess is that for the N.B.A., the upside is that in the foreseeable future, there will come a time when they will not have to look at this and blanch and it will be in the past.”

    League officials declined to comment because the settlement must be approved by the judge, Loretta A. Preska, who has presided over the case in United States District Court in Manhattan.

    The Silnas’ deal resonates, at least in part, because it appears that they snookered the league, or, more accurately, the Nets, the Pacers, the Nuggets and the Spurs, who dealt directly with the brothers.

    But Michael Goldberg, the A.B.A.’s former general counsel, recalled in a recent interview that the four teams were desperate to get into the N.B.A. and willing to satisfy the Silnas.

    “Schupak said they’d take TV rights in perpetuity as a kind of Hail Mary to get money down the road,” he said. “What was missing was someone saying, ‘Thirty years, 50 years, or until something happens, and it’s over.’ ”


    The Spirits got a sweeter deal than the Kentucky Colonels, who were also not absorbed into the league. John Y. Brown, the Colonels’ owner, got $3 million to fold his team.

    And while the Silnas, who were planning to move the franchise to Utah at the time of the merger, did not bring a roster that included Caldwell Jones and Marvin Barnes into the N.B.A., they got a $2.2 million payment — and all that television money. They never acquired another team and have attended to their investments (some of which went sour during the Bernard L. Madoff Ponzi scheme).

    But their deal, widely called the greatest in sports history, if not in American business, lives on as a remnant of the marriage of the undercapitalized A.B.A. and the N.B.A. in its mid-1970s doldrums, before Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and Michael Jordan.

    “The only way to appreciate this,” Goldberg said, “is to go back in a time capsule to the bidding wars between the leagues; the N.B.A. tiring of them, and saying, ‘Let’s take four teams, but not St. Louis and Kentucky, and we’ll move on.’ ”
    "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

    "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

  • #2
    Re: New York Times : Silna Deal Settlement is near (AFFECTS THE PACERS)

    This "new partnership" with the ABA teams should be interesting...

    I am sure all four teams are just tickled to continue partnering with the guys who have been a thorn in their sides for all these years.

    But still, it's great that this buyout is happening.

    I am curious who is footing the bill for this 500 million dollar buyout? The league? The teams? Both?

    This whole thing is intriguing.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: New York Times : Silna Deal Settlement is near (AFFECTS THE PACERS)

      They should have just given them the Pelicans when they were up for sale.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: New York Times : Silna Deal Settlement is near (AFFECTS THE PACERS)

        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
        They should have just given them the Pelicans when they were up for sale.
        They probably tried, at least thought about it. The ABA deal was FAR better.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: New York Times : Silna Deal Settlement is near (AFFECTS THE PACERS)

          Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
          They probably tried, at least thought about it. The ABA deal was FAR better.
          Right, owning a team has expenses. They are getting a cut of the revenue with no risk.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: New York Times : Silna Deal Settlement is near (AFFECTS THE PACERS)

            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
            They should have just given them the Pelicans when they were up for sale.
            Much rather sit back and count the money role in versus actually having to be an owner.

            Hopefully this can be worked out and this stuff can finally end.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: New York Times : Silna Deal Settlement is near (AFFECTS THE PACERS)

              So these old farts will continue to take some of our TV money while doing nothing?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: New York Times : Silna Deal Settlement is near (AFFECTS THE PACERS)

                Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
                So these old farts will continue to take some of our TV money while doing nothing?
                Yes, but not as much as before, and more importantly, there will ultimately be a time where they can be bought out.
                "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: New York Times : Silna Deal Settlement is near (AFFECTS THE PACERS)

                  Finally. We will never know what could've happened without the Pacers carrying this extra weight for decades. But at least now we know that it will be gone at some point.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: New York Times : Silna Deal Settlement is near (AFFECTS THE PACERS)

                    still if they have made 300 million so far, and that's from the Bird era and on how is 500 million a logical amount to buy them out. I get that they want NBA TV money and other stuff like that so maybe it makes sense.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: New York Times : Silna Deal Settlement is near (AFFECTS THE PACERS)

                      Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
                      still if they have made 300 million so far, and that's from the Bird era and on how is 500 million a logical amount to buy them out. I get that they want NBA TV money and other stuff like that so maybe it makes sense.
                      I am not an economics whiz, but I do recall that there are some mathematical models that equate the value of a big lump sum now with a lesser income in the future. The age of the recipients plays a role in how the numbers work out. For these relatively old guys, I think that this much of a lump sum must offset the future potential when considering lawsuit costs and risks of losing challenges to the "new" TV income like online and international viewing.

                      It also allows them to direct their cash assets to funds where their heirs will owe a lot less taxes than they would otherwise. So it's not entirely crazy to be bought out of the best deal in the history of capitalism.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Re: New York Times : Silna Deal Settlement is near (AFFECTS THE PACERS)

                        Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
                        still if they have made 300 million so far, and that's from the Bird era and on how is 500 million a logical amount to buy them out. I get that they want NBA TV money and other stuff like that so maybe it makes sense.
                        The league's TV deal is up after 15/16, I think. The number'll skyrocket, I imagine that's when the true buyout becomes negotiable.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: New York Times : Silna Deal Settlement is near (AFFECTS THE PACERS)

                          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                          I am not an economics whiz, but I do recall that there are some mathematical models that equate the value of a big lump sum now with a lesser income in the future. The age of the recipients plays a role in how the numbers work out. For these relatively old guys, I think that this much of a lump sum must offset the future potential when considering lawsuit costs and risks of losing challenges to the "new" TV income like online and international viewing.

                          It also allows them to direct their cash assets to funds where their heirs will owe a lot less taxes than they would otherwise. So it's not entirely crazy to be bought out of the best deal in the history of capitalism.
                          They also have a right to part of internet revenue, based on a recent court decision. I'd think international TV money is included too, but I'm not sure about that one.

                          It does seem lowish but I guess like you say, the human dimension and age is a big part to this. Besides, the article says they are still going to get extra money each year for some period, and details aren't disclosed, so who knows. For all we know, it might be a billion or more in the long run.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: New York Times : Silna Deal Settlement is near (AFFECTS THE PACERS)

                            I'm still kinda shocked this is heading towards a buyout. I didn't think there was ever going to be a good enough reason to do that from their POV.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: New York Times : Silna Deal Settlement is near (AFFECTS THE PACERS)

                              Aw, let'em keep the deal if they want. It's not like NBA players, management and owners are struggling to feed their families. Also, no problem putting butts in seats now.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X