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

IBJ: Pacers Ask NBA for More Revenue

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

  • IBJ: Pacers Ask NBA for More Revenue

    This week's Indianapolis Business Journal has an article about the Pacers' finances, and a letter the Simons and seven other small-market team owners have sent to the NBA, asking for help.

    Briefly, they ask the NBA to share more revenue from national network broadcasts with the smaller teams. The article is long and contains a lot of information. Here is the link, and an excerpt:


    http://www.ibj.com/html/detail_page.asp?content=421


    Indiana Pacers co-owner Herb Simon has thrown his support behind an effort to pressure National Basketball Association Commissioner David Stern to implement more aggressive revenue sharing among NBA franchises.

    The move, which coincides with declining attendance at Pacers games, is the strongest indicator yet that the local franchise is losing money or is on the brink of doing so.

    Simon, who owns the team with brother Mel, joined seven other NBA owners in signing a letter to Stern pleading for more money for small-market teams.

    “Small-market teams simply can’t afford to make the types of mistakes large-market teams can in the NBA and remain financially viable,” said Richard Sheehan, a University of Notre Dame economist and author of “Keeping Score: The Economics of Big-Time Sports.” “The situation in a market like Indianapolis is unforgiving, and this letter shows the Pacers are hurting.”
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  • #2
    Re: IBJ: Pacers Ask NBA for More Revenue

    The Pacers might want to look at the strategy of throwing big money at mediocre and average talent.

    -Bball
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

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

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: IBJ: Pacers Ask NBA for More Revenue

      Originally posted by Putnam View Post



      The move, which coincides with declining attendance at Pacers games, is the strongest indicator yet that the local franchise is losing money or is on the brink of doing so.

      I always love statements like that. Statements that aren't really true. Perhaps there is some truth to it, but lets look at the stats.

      Average attendance

      This season through 6 games - 17,617
      2006 - 16,179
      2005 - 16,994
      2004 - 16,556
      2003 - 16,352
      2002 - 16,745
      2001 - ???
      2000 - 18,345

      I grant you this season is inflated due to the $4.00 tickets and surprisingly November tends to do pretty well in attendance. I don't know how many $4.00 tickets they sold but even if it was 1500 then the attendance is on par with last season. December is traditionally the slowest month of the season by far, so we'll see what happens this month and I would bet $8.00 tickets won't have the same drawing power as $4.00 tickets.

      OK, but perhaps they aren't talking about last season to this season, but look at the numbers for the other seasons (you could even go back to the last few seasons at MSA and find similar numbers) - the figures have been remarkably consistant from one year to the next. The 2005 figures were bumped up a little because of Reggie's announced retirement. Otherwise those figures likely would have been in the 16,500.

      So for 5 straight seasons the attendance has been remarkably constant.

      I cannot locate the 2001 figures - but if my memoery is correct I think it was between 17,500 - 17,800

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: IBJ: Pacers Ask NBA for More Revenue

        Your numbers are right on, UncleBuck. I guess the IBJ writer is taking the '00 season attendance, which was very high, being the first year at Conseco, and assumes that as the baseline. Every year since has fallen below that. So the question is, was '00 anomalous, or was it the proper benckmark against which to measure attendance for subsequent years?

        The article is saying that the drop of 2,000 from '00 to '06 is the difference between profit and loss to the franchise. Or at least that, given the payroll and revenues as they are, the Pacers need some playoff revenue to stay in the black.

        Here's another excerpt from further down the article:

        Originally posted by IBJ
        Locally, Pacers officials have watched per-game attendance drop from a high of 18,345 during the 1999-2000 season, the team’s first in Conseco Fieldhouse, to 16,180 last year. Club seats and suites have also been a tougher sell in recent years, sources said, bringing the team closer to the red than it has been since vacating Market Square Arena. Last year, the team took a hit in popularity after the brawl with the Detroit Pistons and the antics of malcontent forward Ron Artest, who was eventually traded to Sacramento.

        According to Forbes Magazine estimates, the Pacers’ annual budget is $100 million, and the team’s profits ranged from $2 million to $9 million in the three seasons before the 2005-2006 campaign. Making the playoffs, which generates fan support and more revenue, is almost essential this season, sports economists said. An absence would likely assure a financial loss.
        And I won't be here to see the day
        It all dries up and blows away
        I'd hang around just to see
        But they never had much use for me
        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: IBJ: Pacers Ask NBA for More Revenue

          Originally posted by Putnam View Post
          This week's Indianapolis Business Journal has an article about the Pacers' finances, and a letter the Simons and seven other small-market team owners have sent to the NBA, asking for help.

          Briefly, they ask the NBA to share more revenue from national network broadcasts with the smaller teams. The article is long and contains a lot of information. Here is the link, and an excerpt:


          http://www.ibj.com/html/detail_page.asp?content=421


          Indiana Pacers co-owner Herb Simon has thrown his support behind an effort to pressure National Basketball Association Commissioner David Stern to implement more aggressive revenue sharing among NBA franchises.

          The move, which coincides with declining attendance at Pacers games, is the strongest indicator yet that the local franchise is losing money or is on the brink of doing so.

          Simon, who owns the team with brother Mel, joined seven other NBA owners in signing a letter to Stern pleading for more money for small-market teams.

          author of “Small-market teams simply can’t afford to make the types of mistakes large-market teams can in the NBA and remain financially viable,” said Richard Sheehan, a University of Notre Dame economist and “Keeping Score: The Economics of Big-Time Sports.” “The situation in a market like Indianapolis is unforgiving, and this letter shows the Pacers are hurting.”





          “Small-market teams simply can’t afford to make the types of mistakes large-market teams can in the NBA and remain financially viable,” said Richard Sheehan, a University of Notre Dame economist and

          Gee, I wonder what mistakes are they talking about?

          1 Ron Artest

          2 Steve Jackson


          3 Tinman

          4 JO

          Should I go on?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: IBJ: Pacers Ask NBA for More Revenue

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            I always love statements like that. Statements that aren't really true. Perhaps there is some truth to it, but lets look at the stats.

            Average attendance

            This season through 6 games - 17,617
            2006 - 16,179
            2005 - 16,994
            2004 - 16,556
            2003 - 16,352
            2002 - 16,745
            2001 - ???
            2000 - 18,345

            I grant you this season is inflated due to the $4.00 tickets and surprisingly November tends to do pretty well in attendance. I don't know how many $4.00 tickets they sold but even if it was 1500 then the attendance is on par with last season. December is traditionally the slowest month of the season by far, so we'll see what happens this month and I would bet $8.00 tickets won't have the same drawing power as $4.00 tickets.

            OK, but perhaps they aren't talking about last season to this season, but look at the numbers for the other seasons (you could even go back to the last few seasons at MSA and find similar numbers) - the figures have been remarkably consistant from one year to the next. The 2005 figures were bumped up a little because of Reggie's announced retirement. Otherwise those figures likely would have been in the 16,500.

            So for 5 straight seasons the attendance has been remarkably constant.

            I cannot locate the 2001 figures - but if my memoery is correct I think it was between 17,500 - 17,800
            Now UB, you know that there is a difference between paid attendance and the actual head count at the games. I think that the Pacer brass know a little more about the figures than you do.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: IBJ: Pacers Ask NBA for More Revenue

              Originally posted by ALF68 View Post
              “Small-market teams simply can’t afford to make the types of mistakes large-market teams can in the NBA and remain financially viable,” said Richard Sheehan, a University of Notre Dame economist and

              Gee, I wonder what mistakes are they talking about?

              1 Ron Artest

              2 Steve Jackson


              3 Tinman

              4 JO

              Should I go on?
              I think its more about what would happen if they traded for half the knicks roster. If we have shown a profit over the last six years, then they don't have a gripe. This is more of a future thing then present. We actually have suffered the most from the brawl, rather than an injury like Benders. Jax hasn't helped ticket sales either flashing guns around indy. All of us thought we had a chance to make a run for the title last year and then Mo-ron staged his antics again and blindsided that.
              "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
              Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: IBJ: Pacers Ask NBA for More Revenue

                The Pacers are between a rock and a hard spot.

                Since 2000, as salaries went up, so did ticket prices. Although, in the year that we re-signed six of our free agents, and let BMiller go, I really thought that ticket prices would climb more than they did.

                But now, especially after the brawl, the behavior of Artest and Jackson, and a roster that just hasn't been embraced as much as in previous years, the Pacers are doing everything they can to decrease the payroll so they will not have to raise ticket prices.

                And quite frankly, even if the total salary actually increased by a few million, I don't think the Pacers could afford to increase ticket prices while they are pulling their collective hair out trying to regain fans.

                So, from a business perspective, the Pacers are not in a good position at all. They are not going to get extra dollars from their fans, at this point in time, as indicated by the $4 and $8 tickets, the Pacers ticket revenues will be even less. So they are turning to their only remaining avenue... TV revenues from the league as a whole.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: IBJ: Pacers Ask NBA for More Revenue

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  The Pacers might want to look at the strategy of throwing big money at mediocre and average talent.

                  -Bball
                  If I had said that, it would be trolling, amazing.

                  Anyway, maybe they should stop consistently doing this, which will allow them to be a better team and thus win more of the Bandwagon fans that only follow the team when they are good. Amazing what good scouting and management can do.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: IBJ: Pacers Ask NBA for More Revenue

                    “Small-market teams simply can’t afford to make the types of mistakes large-market teams can in the NBA and remain financially viable,”

                    ..signing Jermaine O'Neal to an over paid salary didn't help

                    i keed i keed....anyway. its good to see the smaller market teams are fighting for more cash
                    If you havin' depth problems, I feel bad for you son; I got 99 problems but a bench ain't one! - Hicks
                    [/center]
                    @thatguyjoe84

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: IBJ: Pacers Ask NBA for More Revenue

                      Originally posted by ALF68 View Post
                      “Small-market teams simply can’t afford to make the types of mistakes large-market teams can in the NBA and remain financially viable,” said Richard Sheehan, a University of Notre Dame economist and

                      Gee, I wonder what mistakes are they talking about?

                      1 Ron Artest

                      2 Steve Jackson


                      3 Tinman

                      4 JO

                      Should I go on?

                      re-signing Carlisle. if we're rebuilding, might as well got a new coach, RC's style of play makes it less interesting to watch the Pacers anyway.
                      http://Twitter.com/dRealSource

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: IBJ: Pacers Ask NBA for More Revenue

                        Originally posted by denyfizle View Post
                        re-signing Carlisle. if we're rebuilding, might as well got a new coach, RC's style of play makes it less interesting to watch the Pacers anyway.
                        Yeah, I agree add Rick to the list of mistakes.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: IBJ: Pacers Ask NBA for More Revenue

                          Originally posted by ALF68 View Post
                          Now UB, you know that there is a difference between paid attendance and the actual head count at the games. I think that the Pacer brass know a little more about the figures than you do.
                          Right, but we're not hearing this from the Pacers Brass. We're hearing this as speculation from the Indiana Business Journal.

                          Big difference.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: IBJ: Pacers Ask NBA for More Revenue

                            Rick is hardly a mistake, god forbid we give him one starter that doesn't have a doctors note year round, or a court date.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: IBJ: Pacers Ask NBA for More Revenue

                              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                              This week's Indianapolis Business Journal has an article about the Pacers' finances, and a letter the Simons and seven other small-market team owners have sent to the NBA, asking for help.

                              Briefly, they ask the NBA to share more revenue from national network broadcasts with the smaller teams. The article is long and contains a lot of information. Here is the link, and an excerpt:


                              http://www.ibj.com/html/detail_page.asp?content=421


                              Indiana Pacers co-owner Herb Simon has thrown his support behind an effort to pressure National Basketball Association Commissioner David Stern to implement more aggressive revenue sharing among NBA franchises.

                              The move, which coincides with declining attendance at Pacers games, is the strongest indicator yet that the local franchise is losing money or is on the brink of doing so.

                              Simon, who owns the team with brother Mel, joined seven other NBA owners in signing a letter to Stern pleading for more money for small-market teams.

                              “Small-market teams simply can’t afford to make the types of mistakes large-market teams can in the NBA and remain financially viable,” said Richard Sheehan, a University of Notre Dame economist and author of “Keeping Score: The Economics of Big-Time Sports.” “The situation in a market like Indianapolis is unforgiving, and this letter shows the Pacers are hurting.”
                              This is all Bull *****. (sarcasm)
                              PLENTY of know it all's here ASSURED us that there is NO way the Pacers could be experiencing any financial difficulties. Why should anyone be alienated from paying their $100 for a 2 hour game to see some rich athletes pretend to give effort? Mail it in. Just because we haven't played worth a ***** in 2 years doesn't mean anything! Geez! (sarcasm)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X