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

NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

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

  • #46
    Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

    I hate it too, but it was all inevitable, and I bet all major sports will have advertising on their uni's within 5-10 years, I think they were all waiting to not be the first league to impliment it. Now they can all look at the NBA and say they started it.
    "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

    ----------------- Reggie Miller

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

      Originally posted by Cactus Jax View Post
      I hate it too, but it was all inevitable, and I bet all major sports will have advertising on their uni's within 5-10 years, I think they were all waiting to not be the first league to impliment it. Now they can all look at the NBA and say they started it.
      Other sports already do it, soccer has been doing it forever, as have auto racing sports... but those guys have their own reasons for doing it (soccer has no timeouts and thus very few TV commercials; auto racing sponsorships have a large number of auto-related brands advertising like motor oil companies etc.) Tennis and golf players wear logos but those are usually for brands that make their gear and/or clothing, plus those guys are individuals and not part of a team...

      Basketball doesn't really have any of those reasons, there are tons of sponsorship and advertising opportunities already being used (the court itself often has ads on/around it for example), which to me makes the uniform thing appear a bit more crass and desperate-looking. JMHO

      Who knows, if they don't get it right there is a small possibility of a backlash. Remember a few years back when they tried to introduce a new basketball and the players and fans hated how it?

      EDIT: also I hate how people feel this is "inevitable." Is it inevitable that every square inch of everything that can be sold to the highest bidder will eventually have an ad stuck on it? What kind of depressing thought would that be? What does that say about our values and our culture. Just sayin.


      Last edited by rabid; 07-20-2012, 01:28 PM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

        Originally posted by sportfireman View Post
        Hey if it helps the Pacers stay in Indiana.......

        and possibly lower ticket prices.
        That is the thing though, this kind of stuff never makes things cheaper, it just makes the rich richer. People used to argue that it was ok to put advertisements in video games because it would make it cheaper, it has still yet to have an effect on the cost of video games. Every year the cost of putting an ad up during the Super Bowl becomes more and more expensive, but every year tickets become more and more expensive. In the end the only thing that will lower ticket prices is lower attendance.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

          Originally posted by rabidpacersfan View Post
          auto racing sponsorships have a large number of auto-related brands advertising like motor oil companies etc.
          Auto racing has it because the cars are so damn expensive. I would guess 90% of all drivers wouldn't make enough money in winnings to even be racing, and who would want to watch a 500 mile race between 6 people?

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
            That is the thing though, this kind of stuff never makes things cheaper, it just makes the rich richer. People used to argue that it was ok to put advertisements in video games because it would make it cheaper, it has still yet to have an effect on the cost of video games. Every year the cost of putting an ad up during the Super Bowl becomes more and more expensive, but every year tickets become more and more expensive. In the end the only thing that will lower ticket prices is lower attendance.
            Do you have an actual economic study that shows the growth in prices can be reasonably inferred to be the same as it would have been without advertising, or is this just a general "if prices go up at all then other sources of revenue must be going straight to profit" observation?

            In some cases, like the Super Bowl, prices are based on scarcity. That means they aren't being priced in any relation to the costs, they are priced based on the buyer's perceived value. It would take pretty high prices before the cost of a Super Bowl ticket makes a difference in the sale of tickets - this would be an "inelastic" good, one where demand does not change significantly based on price. So, for this sort of good, your view would be correct.

            In other cases, like video games, I'd venture to say that price has a much greater effect on demand - in other words, those goods are "elastic". I would bet that product placement/advertising revenue does a great deal to hold down the increase in prices in order to make sure demand is maximized. Costs still go up because inflation exists, but the base price would be more if it wasn't for the infusion of additional revenue. For this sort of good, your view is likely incorrect.

            Pacer tickets fall into something of a gray area, because it is hard to tell if the lack of demand is due to ticket pricing or the perceived quality of the good provided. In any event, though, there is not a whole lot of room to reduce ticket prices further due to the cost structure and the current money losing situation of the team. For additional revenue to come anywhere close to having an effect on ticket prices, it would have to be relatively large compared to the cost of running the team. If it is not, then it is better served going toward those costs ALREADY not covered by the current ticket sales rather than being used to essentially have no increase in overall revenue by subtracting a portion from current income that - at best - would keep losses at the same level. There is no evidence to suggest at all that such revenue would simply line anyone's pockets ("make the rich richer") with no regard to the current bottom line of the team.
            BillS

            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              With due concern about spinning down this rathole again, just how low do you think ticket prices should be? I think prices at the Fieldhouse are pretty reasonable.

              If your pipe dream is that courtsides should be cheaper than an iMax movie then you don't understand the economics of the situation at all.
              I agree, if I thought courtside seats should be cheaper than an iMax movie, that would be silly. But, that's not my point. What I'm saying is, it would be nice if, at some point (any point), an increase in revenue would be reflected in a dollar for dollar decrease in ticket prices (or, parking or concessions, whatever). So, if putting a patch on a jersey brings in an extra $10 million (I have no idea what kind of money they're talking about for sponsorship), lower the ticket prices in a way that would effectively lower the gate by $10 million.

              You're working from the other side of the equation by assuming I have a set price for what tickets should be. I don't. Just adjust them down to match the added revenue. If that means tickets only go down $3 a ticket, then fine.

              But, having said all that, my pipe dream is only in relation to the idea that ticket prices would ever go down in direct correlation to new revenue. Not that they'd be drastically reduced to an unrealistic number.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

                Originally posted by BillS View Post

                In any event, though, there is not a whole lot of room to reduce ticket prices further due to the cost structure and the current money losing situation of the team. For additional revenue to come anywhere close to having an effect on ticket prices, it would have to be relatively large compared to the cost of running the team. If it is not, then it is better served going toward those costs ALREADY not covered by the current ticket sales rather than being used to essentially have no increase in overall revenue by subtracting a portion from current income that - at best - would keep losses at the same level. There is no evidence to suggest at all that such revenue would simply line anyone's pockets ("make the rich richer") with no regard to the current bottom line of the team.
                I understand that a team that's losing money would want to apply new revenue to cover those losses. My pipe dream is more in the abstract (and assuming a team is making a profit in the first place).

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

                  I really don't mind it, the patches are probably going to be really small and if it helps small-market owners I'm fine with it. Also, this shouldn't be surprising to anyone. Of course the owners are going to vote to allow a new revenue stream.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

                    I have a feeling that the Pacers won't get SportZone as their sponsor.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

                      Originally posted by A-Train View Post
                      I agree, if I thought courtside seats should be cheaper than an iMax movie, that would be silly. But, that's not my point. What I'm saying is, it would be nice if, at some point (any point), an increase in revenue would be reflected in a dollar for dollar decrease in ticket prices (or, parking or concessions, whatever). So, if putting a patch on a jersey brings in an extra $10 million (I have no idea what kind of money they're talking about for sponsorship), lower the ticket prices in a way that would effectively lower the gate by $10 million.

                      You're working from the other side of the equation by assuming I have a set price for what tickets should be. I don't. Just adjust them down to match the added revenue. If that means tickets only go down $3 a ticket, then fine.

                      But, having said all that, my pipe dream is only in relation to the idea that ticket prices would ever go down in direct correlation to new revenue. Not that they'd be drastically reduced to an unrealistic number.
                      I guess my question would be why you'd spend the money on marketing and sponsorship reps to go out and get that extra ad revenue if you were going to just use it to replace already existing revenue. Unless the sponsor walks up to you and gives you that $10M without needing to do anything in exchange - including even repainting a sign - then to take X revenue and give up X revenue from another place means you just lost money.

                      That said, there HAVE been promotions where companies basically sponsor tickets to be sold for a lower price or buy blocks of tickets to give away. I doubt seriously those companies are paying a premium (in fact, they probably even get a discount). I know you are talking about a more general and season-long price impact, but I think the ONLY way would be for someone to actually spend the money directly on the tickets themselves.
                      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


                      • #56
                        Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        I guess my question would be why you'd spend the money on marketing and sponsorship reps to go out and get that extra ad revenue if you were going to just use it to replace already existing revenue.
                        See, you're talking real life... I'm talking out loud about a pipe dream... if that answers your question.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

                          Originally posted by A-Train View Post
                          See, you're talking real life... I'm talking out loud about a pipe dream... if that answers your question.
                          Hey......

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

                            Originally posted by sportfireman View Post
                            Hey if it helps the Pacers stay in Indiana.......

                            and possibly lower ticket prices.
                            Lakers jersey advertising: 20 mil a year
                            Pacers: 2 mil a year

                            Unless they share this revenue, it will only make the separation bigger.

                            Just look at soccer, Barca gets 30+ mil a year, and it's actually because they decided to be cool and advertise a non-profit, they could've easily sold out for much more.
                            While mid table Spanish teams are lucky to get 10 times less.

                            Hell, look at American MLS, which is supposed to have more parity than any other soccer league and even more than the NBA. LA Galaxy has a choice of 4-5 mil offers, while a team in Columbus is happy to get 1 mil a year after a long search.

                            Btw, Houston may benefit a lot.
                            Chinese companies have been throwing multimillion deals at mid-tier Premier league teams for years now. What would they pay for their logo on a Lin jersey?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

                              Yeah there needs to be some sort of share on the revenue from this somehow otherwise the Lakers/Knicks/Celtics/Heat will be cashing in a big way compared to the rest.
                              "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                              ----------------- Reggie Miller

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: NBA Approves Advertising on Uniforms

                                Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                                The last thing I want to see is our Pacers jersey take on the look of a Danica Patrick driving suit. And, I suppose the players will soon be b!tching about wanting their 49%.
                                they'd get their 49-51% by default.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X