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

If I Ruled the (NBA) World - Bill Simmons (v. lockout)

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

  • If I Ruled the (NBA) World - Bill Simmons (v. lockout)

    I searched for where anyone might have posted it, but didn't see it anywhere. So if it is a repeat I'm sorries.

    Any how, I hated his article. The reason the NBA has so many problems is they continue to consider each and every team as an individual business and don't realize that just like every other American sports organization they're a cartel.

    The Lakers make so much more money than everyone else for a number of reasons but it is ridiculous to not consider they depend on the rest of the NBA. If they marketed the NBA as a solid league instead of the few select bigger markets, they'd have as much universal love as the NFL.

    Dallas and Miami aren't huge markets, and to act as if the massive ratings they received is because of big markets winning is ridiculous. Simmons is drinking the Stern coolaid again

    What Dave would tell the owners: "Fifty-seven percent was too high, and the tax created more problems than it solved. I get that. But with all due respect to Real Adam, I'd argue the Lakers should spend 225 percent as much on salary as the Kings. After all, they play in Los Angeles, not Sacramento. They make more local TV money in one year than Sacramento makes in 12. They can charge three times as much for tickets. And their owner has enough money to pay his players without hawking his prized possessions like he's on an special episode of Pawn Stars. We ARE a league of Haves and Have-Nots. Look at every great season we've ever had — when we're top-heavy and bottom-heavy, that's when we have the best teams and the best playoff games.

    "Here's a newsflash: We're not the NFL. They have revenue sharing because it doesn't matter who plays in the Super Bowl, or where Peyton Manning spends his career. All that matters is parity and television money. Our success hinges on star power and big-market teams; we could never survive one year without a team in Los Angeles, much less two decades and counting like the NFL just did. Our attendance numbers these past few years have told us — pretty convincingly — that small-market fans aren't forking over money for professional basketball anymore unless their local team is good or great. And even then, they might not show up.

    "We have to reinvent our league. We have to figure out which 25 to 30 cities can handle a professional basketball franchise instead of wasting our time protecting the ones that can't. We have to accept that big-market teams have a better chance of succeeding than small-market teams, for a variety of reasons, but mainly because wealthier owners want to own big-market teams and talented players want to play for big-market teams. That's the reality. That's the big picture. But yes, the small picture says we need to knock down that BRI a little. A 50/50 split seems totally fair."
    http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...uled-nba-world
    Last edited by mattie; 07-08-2011, 08:17 PM.

  • #2
    Re: If I Ruled the (NBA) World - Bill Simmons (v. lockout)

    I will never claim to be an expert on the economics of the NBA, but I agreed with pretty much every suggestion that he made. The thing with the All Star/Superstar/Franchise player sounds really interesting.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: If I Ruled the (NBA) World - Bill Simmons (v. lockout)

      If the NBA was a single business, that allowed the teams to compete against eachother, it would solve so many problems. Then you wouldn't have people assuming that just because LA brought in more revenue they some how deserve more of the profits. All profits would merely be the NBA's profits, and in an effort to increase profits the NBA would work to improve the entire product as a whole.

      Attempting to cater to the whims of the big market teams is effectively like killing the golden goose. They're destroying the league because they think LA, Chicago and New York are their big money makers. If the league didn't blow, the rest of the markets would make them money too.
      Last edited by mattie; 07-08-2011, 08:47 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: If I Ruled the (NBA) World - Bill Simmons (v. lockout)

        Bill just doesn't understand the small market, and he's never tried. He's argued not only contraction, but heavy contraction for years. Why? Cause it doesn't affect him. Typical fly-over mentality.
        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: If I Ruled the (NBA) World - Bill Simmons (v. lockout)

          I despise the argument because he's basically arguing against competition. He's essentially arguing the NBA should fix games so the big markets win everything. I can't fathom wanting to watch a league that was anti-competition.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: If I Ruled the (NBA) World - Bill Simmons (v. lockout)

            Originally posted by mattie View Post
            Dallas and Miami aren't huge markets, and to act as if the massive ratings they received is because of big markets winning is ridiculous. Simmons is drinking the Stern coolaid again



            http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...uled-nba-world


            Dallas and Miami are huge markets. They aren't New York, LA, or Chicago, but they are in the next tier. Dallas is the 4th largest metro in the US and Miami is the 8th. Those two metro areas are two of the largest in the United States.

            But I agree with you that the massive ratings is not because of market size, it's because of star power. People wanted to watch the Miami 3 (whether they loved or hated them) and Dallas had quite a bit of pull as well once they went deep. I think a lot of people wanted to see Dirk and those guys win.

            One area where Simmons goes wrong is when he implies that low attendance for poor teams is only a small market problem. Has he not seen how bad Philly's attendance has been recently?

            Better yet, what about Boston in the pre-Big 3 years. In fact in 04-05, the Celtics were a poor 24th in the league in attendance (even though they were a playoff team). They only filled up to 85% capacity that year. In fact, the Pacers averaged more fans that season despite Conseco being smaller than the Celtics arena. That should NEVER happen given how much larger Boston is than Indy.

            That's just one year that I cherry-picked. But all of the pre-big 3 years were pretty bad as far as Celtics attendance goes. Several seasons below 90% capacity. That shouldn't happen when you are in a large market and have the most storied team in the NBA. Instead of picking on small market teams, Simmons needs to acknowledge that Boston can be as fickle as anywhere else. The bottom line is that no one anywhere wants to see poor NBA basketball. No fan base will come out in groves for 41 games a year to watch crap.

            http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2005
            Last edited by Sollozzo; 07-08-2011, 09:22 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: If I Ruled the (NBA) World - Bill Simmons (v. lockout)

              I cant say it enough, I love Bill Simmons and 95% of his ideas. He's got flaws in his arguments for entertainment purposes but he truly is a pioneer in this young age of the internet sports columns.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: If I Ruled the (NBA) World - Bill Simmons (v. lockout)

                Simmons is a Celtics fan and a fan of good basketball. He can make all sorts of pro-contraction, pro-big market arguments because, no matter what happens, the Celtics are going to be sitting pretty.

                His arguments make sense from a historical perspective. He wants to watch the best basketball possible. He wants an NBA finals that contains 8 all-stars. His general premise is that it's more entertaining to watch the best possible players all playing against each other at the same time.
                "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                - Salman Rushdie

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: If I Ruled the (NBA) World - Bill Simmons (v. lockout)

                  Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                  Simmons is a Celtics fan and a fan of good basketball. He can make all sorts of pro-contraction, pro-big market arguments because, no matter what happens, the Celtics are going to be sitting pretty.

                  Not true at all. From 1992-2007, the Celtics were beyond irrelevant. They won three playoff series' in that span. The Celtics were a complete afterthought in Boston before KG and Ray teamed up with Pierce. They could easily fall back in the toilet once those guys leave.

                  The Knicks were the scum of the league during the 00's.

                  There's no guarantee that big market teams are always going to be sitting pretty. In fact, the only big market team that has virtually ALWAYS been good is the Lakers. Aside from about 5 down years in the 90's between Magic and Kobe/Shaq, that team has always been in contention with it's star-studded rosters. That tradition will probably continue once Kobe leaves and they have cap space again. They will convince someone to go there.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: If I Ruled the (NBA) World - Bill Simmons (v. lockout)

                    Love the Entertaining As Hell Tournament idea.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: If I Ruled the (NBA) World - Bill Simmons (v. lockout)

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      Dallas and Miami are huge markets. They aren't New York, LA, or Chicago, but they are in the next tier. Dallas is the 4th largest metro in the US and Miami is the 8th. Those two metro areas are two of the largest in the United States.

                      But I agree with you that the massive ratings is not because of market size, it's because of star power. People wanted to watch the Miami 3 (whether they loved or hated them) and Dallas had quite a bit of pull as well once they went deep. I think a lot of people wanted to see Dirk and those guys win.

                      One area where Simmons goes wrong is when he implies that low attendance for poor teams is only a small market problem. Has he not seen how bad Philly's attendance has been recently?

                      Better yet, what about Boston in the pre-Big 3 years. In fact in 04-05, the Celtics were a poor 24th in the league in attendance (even though they were a playoff team). They only filled up to 85% capacity that year. In fact, the Pacers averaged more fans that season despite Conseco being smaller than the Celtics arena. That should NEVER happen given how much larger Boston is than Indy.

                      That's just one year that I cherry-picked. But all of the pre-big 3 years were pretty bad as far as Celtics attendance goes. Several seasons below 90% capacity. That shouldn't happen when you are in a large market and have the most storied team in the NBA. Instead of picking on small market teams, Simmons needs to acknowledge that Boston can be as fickle as anywhere else. The bottom line is that no one anywhere wants to see poor NBA basketball. No fan base will come out in groves for 41 games a year to watch crap.

                      http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2005
                      I think this says a lot about the product of basketball that the NBA promotes. Get rid of the star treatment, ticky tack fouls, and rules likes defensive 3 seconds and emphasize the team game I have absolutely no doubt you will see attendance go up. If you got rid of the star treatment I am willing to bet there would be a lot smaller gap between the stars. Try to make it difficult to amass a large group of stars on one team via trades and FA, and more teams will have stars giving more fan bases a reason to think they can compete, and they could actually compete.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: If I Ruled the (NBA) World - Bill Simmons (v. lockout)

                        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                        I think this says a lot about the product of basketball that the NBA promotes. Get rid of the star treatment, ticky tack fouls, and rules likes defensive 3 seconds and emphasize the team game I have absolutely no doubt you will see attendance go up. If you got rid of the star treatment I am willing to bet there would be a lot smaller gap between the stars. Try to make it difficult to amass a large group of stars on one team via trades and FA, and more teams will have stars giving more fan bases a reason to think they can compete, and they could actually compete.
                        Exactly, to act as if people will only watch superstars play is to act like people won't watch college basketball.

                        The league suffers now because of terrible marketing, and horrible competition. The front office has no intentions of allowing a completely level playing field, which is the opposite of every other major league in the US.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: If I Ruled the (NBA) World - Bill Simmons (v. lockout)

                          Did anyone else cringe a little when he says,
                          forking over hard-earned profits to make sure basketball can keep limping along in Sacramento, Milwaukee, Philly, Detroit, New Orleans, Charlotte and Indiana are between 0.0 and 0.00000001 percent.
                          But then breathe a some sighs of relief when we aren't included in:
                          Why do you think rich dudes weren't exactly lining up to purchase the Hornets, Kings, Pistons, Bucks or Sixers?
                          but included in:
                          landed a Friday Final Four of the Grizzlies, Clippers, Pacers and (in a feel-good story) the upstart Cavaliers.
                          Not saying his word is gospel or anything, but two out of three has to mean its getting better for Pacers fans, right?
                          You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: If I Ruled the (NBA) World - Bill Simmons (v. lockout)

                            I like Bill Simmons,but I hate his anti-small market propaganda. This column is trash.
                            Pacers,baby!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: If I Ruled the (NBA) World - Bill Simmons (v. lockout)

                              Bill Simmons has the luxury of posting in the abstract without having to deal with the real world.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X