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

Pacers finances baffle me

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

  • #16
    Re: Pacers finances baffle me

    Duke and Bill mention the advertising dollars and corporate sponsorships.



    Think about Conseco Fieldhouse as an advertising venue. Now compare it to a billboard on I-70. Or to a 30-second spot on the radio station of your choice. Or a message printed on a bar napkin.

    Does anybody here work in advertising? What would you pay for an illuminated sign inside Conseco Fieldhouse?
    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


    • #17
      Re: Pacers finances baffle me

      Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
      Most definitely. Most of his points in this article are well-received. That and I've always felt that shortening the NBA season would be a great idea.
      Why would the owners agree to shorten the season? That takes away money making opportunities. If they did a 42 game season are you prepared to pay double for your tickets?


      I really do not believe that the Pacers lost money every year but 2 since Conseco has been open. That is just a flat out lie. Its all accounting techniques. They sold out almost every game of the finals season, and sold out almost every game of the Eastern conference finals team that had Artest. They were a very successfull team during Thomas's coaching term as well. If they have to sell out every game in a season to stay out of the red, then they made a horrible decision in choosing the field house design. Also remember that they have had arena football in there, numerous concerts, Big 10 tournaments, ice hockey. PACERS made money from all those events. I just simply don't believe it, billionaires are billionaires for a reason and Simon properties isn't hurting for money.
      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Pacers finances baffle me

        I think once these big contracts expire in 2011 we'll be a lot better. Maybe with JOB gone and a decent team by then we'll get more tickets sold.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Pacers finances baffle me

          Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
          But that is just the average ticket price, that doesn't factor in corporate suites or the "Hollywood" seats. You can't just assume that every seat is $30+. Sponsorships have a major role in revenue as well.
          Fail on the meaning of "average".

          Come on Duke. Averages are just scaled aggregates. Layman terms - you add it all up, then divide.


          Now perhaps the math is wrong in the sense of how they calculated the average ticket price. If the price average is based on total seat costs by number of seats, not seats sold, then that average is not directly connected to the average attendance.

          But this doesn't help your case because what this means is that seat price could be weighted heavily toward high end seats that aren't being sold and are therefore not part of the average attendance. You're assuming that the attendance is mostly filling the high dollar seats and based on my anecdotal experience this year which includes being aware of numerous below normal seat price sales (buy a lower level seat for $20 for one game special) I think this assumption is dead wrong.

          Plus, if that average ticket price is based on total seats divided by total cost to buy all those seats, we don't know which price is being assigned to each seat. Is it the face value or the season ticket holder price?

          If it's face value then again we know the team is actually making far less money per seat than that.
          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-08-2010, 11:44 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Pacers finances baffle me

            Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
            Why would the owners agree to shorten the season? That takes away money making opportunities. If they did a 42 game season are you prepared to pay double for your tickets?


            I really do not believe that the Pacers lost money every year but 2 since Conseco has been open. That is just a flat out lie. Its all accounting techniques. They sold out almost every game of the finals season, and sold out almost every game of the Eastern conference finals team that had Artest. They were a very successfull team during Thomas's coaching term as well. If they have to sell out every game in a season to stay out of the red, then they made a horrible decision in choosing the field house design. Also remember that they have had arena football in there, numerous concerts, Big 10 tournaments, ice hockey. PACERS made money from all those events. I just simply don't believe it, billionaires are billionaires for a reason and Simon properties isn't hurting for money.
            I don't buy any of that. What would the motive be to lie about finances? Simon Properties isn't hurting for money, but PS&E is. Billionaire or not, losing money is losing money. Nobody wants to lose money.

            You also have to remember if PS&E gets money for non-Pacers/Fever events, you still have to pay staff.

            Why does the design have to do with any sell outs? 18,000+ seats is a modest upgrade from MSA, and probably the best idea. Heck, we know why they didn't add too many more football seats to LOS than the RCA Dome.

            Shortening the season would make each game more of an event, and more of a money-drawer. That is why football is more successful, less games.

            I would understand that .500 or marginally better seasons under Thomas are better than what we have now, but I would not call them "successful" by any stretch.

            That and someone please give me a sell-out figure for 2003-2004. Their average attendance was 16,000.
            Last edited by duke dynamite; 03-08-2010, 11:44 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Pacers finances baffle me

              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
              Duke and Bill mention the advertising dollars and corporate sponsorships.



              Think about Conseco Fieldhouse as an advertising venue. Now compare it to a billboard on I-70. Or to a 30-second spot on the radio station of your choice. Or a message printed on a bar napkin.

              Does anybody here work in advertising? What would you pay for an illuminated sign inside Conseco Fieldhouse?
              Most of the interior advertising in Conseco are trade offs. My friend works for Caldwell VanRiper, and he was talking about that at a game last season. This is a sign of poor advertising flow. I don't recall if they're still there, but the IRL signs were basically "trades" for Pacer advertising at the track.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                Originally posted by count55 View Post
                Most of the interior advertising in Conseco are trade offs. My friend works for Caldwell VanRiper, and he was talking about that at a game last season. This is a sign of poor advertising flow. I don't recall if they're still there, but the IRL signs were basically "trades" for Pacer advertising at the track.
                The IRL signs are still there... and I agree this strategy is poor advertising.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                  Originally posted by chrisjacobs7 View Post
                  The IRL signs are still there... and I agree this strategy is poor advertising.
                  It's not a strategy, it's a fall back. If they could sell the spots, they would. As it is, they use them as a cost offset.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                    Originally posted by count55 View Post
                    It's not a strategy, it's a fall back. If they could sell the spots, they would. As it is, they use them as a cost offset.
                    Ok my bad, I misread your first post. With the current economy I would imagine it'd be difficult to sell advertising for a good team, let alone the Pacers.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                      Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                      I don't buy any of that. What would the motive be to lie about finances? Simon Properties isn't hurting for money, but PS&E is. Billionaire or not, losing money is losing money. Nobody wants to lose money.
                      Maybe its not a outright lie, but its various accounting techniques. I read somewhere they factor in depreciation because the team used to be worth 300+ million. They move expenditures from category to category to make it seem worse than it is, all to paint dire picture for CIB.

                      You talk about staffing the place for these extra events, if they had that much overhead to where they weren't very profitable then they would refuse to hold the event.

                      Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                      Why does the design have to do with any sell outs? 18,000+ seats is a modest upgrade from MSA, and probably the best idea. Heck, we know why they didn't add too many more football seats to LOS than the RCA Dome.
                      We don't know the overhead of such a facility like conseco, also the initial investment to build it. They say now days it would be financially impossible to build a fieldhouse like ours.

                      Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                      Shortening the season would make each game more of an event, and more of a money-drawer. That is why football is more successful, less games.
                      So then what is the number of games that makes sense. 41 home games isn't a terrible amount in my opinion. You want to eliminate all the western conference teams coming in here? Those draw the most fans right now. People aren't clamoring to see the Bucks, Bulls, and Nets. I doubt people will be ponying up $40-$50 per seat to sit up in the upper balcony for 20 games a season.

                      Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                      I would understand that .500 or marginally better seasons under Thomas are better than what we have now, but I would not call them "successful" by any stretch.
                      Those teams made the playoffs, and weren't the 7-8th seed that's a successful season.

                      Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                      That and someone please give me a sell-out figure for 2003-2004. Their average attendance was 16,000.
                      I couldn't find a sell out figure but they averaged 89% in ticket sales in capacity. So that tells me they should have had a great year profit wise, but the comes off as they barely broke even.

                      I would like to know what percentage of ticket sales do they need to average to have a profitable season?
                      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        Doesn't matter, the whole point of "average" is that if you multiply it by the total number of seats you get the same number as if you added up each seat's individual cost.
                        Dollar-weighted average and average aren't the same.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          Doesn't matter, the whole point of "average" is that if you multiply it by the total number of seats you get the same number as if you added up each seat's individual cost.
                          maybe i'm missing duke's point, but it does matter if you subscribe to the idea that certain entities are given tickets for nothing. that is a huge reason why community activist rally against new arenas and stadiums. the politico machine that makes it happen receives free tickets that hurt the bottom line. i also think it's very likely that PS&E manipulates revenue. if you could make more money, why wouldn't you?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                            Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                            Dollar-weighted average and average aren't the same.
                            So is Putnam wrong to be multiplying the rough average of $30 per ticket times the average attendance times the number of home games?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                              Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                              Dollar-weighted average and average aren't the same.
                              Granted it has been many years since I flunked statistics, but "dollar weighted average cost" doesn't make sense to me. Something like "dollar weighted attendance" might.
                              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


                              • #30
                                Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                                Shortening the season would make each game more of an event, and more of a money-drawer. That is why football is more successful, less games.
                                That's not true, at least by attendance. The NFL makes most of the money on TV. It's more successful because of the nature of the sport, the culture of the sport (including fantasy football and gambling), and how well it plays on TV. Football is NOT more successful in other countries, for example, no matter how many games there are.

                                The Colts couldn't even sell out every game (by TV cutoff) of 2003 - the heart of Peyton/Harrison/Edge/Wayne/Freney era. And right now plenty of NFL teams have gaping holes in the stands just like Indy did only 10 or so years ago. 1993 vs the Jets, you think that RCA crowd was packed in?



                                I doubt people will be ponying up $40-$50 per seat to sit up in the upper balcony for 20 games a season.
                                Exactly. To me this is just like MLB interleague. When it's the Yanks, Phillies, Sox and Mets coming to town it's great. When it's the Indians and Pirates is it really helping ticket sales?

                                The Cavs and Lakers game was packed. But for the Bucks game there had to be 10 empty seats on the FRONT row.


                                I do know that some teams have started working with a tiered pricing system where some games cost more than others, and I think the Cubs are going to a system where for a premium you can buy into games ahead of other fans. Basically the team undermining the scalpers and bringing those premium ticket profits back in house.



                                On top of all of this, we have some idea of league revenue because the freaking CBA sets the cap against it. Last time I checked teams weren't asking players to pay to play.

                                If teams are really losing 20-30m a year, think about the amount of player salary cuts that would require. Also you'd have to question how they fixed that salary % so poorly against total revenue that they are losing money.

                                I mean salary is a percent of what they bring in, so no matter how much or little that is the teams agreed to run the REST of the operation on the remaining PCT, not some fixed amount. So now 43% is nowhere near enough to cover all the other expenses? The cap has only now started to go down, so how were they making less money in 2003 than 1998 when the cap says that revenue continued to increase?
                                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-08-2010, 03:25 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X