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

[Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

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

  • #46
    Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

    Originally posted by Shade View Post
    If Indiana can't afford to spend money due to their small market status, then how do you explain Cleveland's payroll?
    When you have a Super Team that are considered 2nd round ( or beyond....such as what Toronto did and what Boston will soon do ) Playoff material that is headed in the direction of being an Near Elite / Elite Team....you pay for that Team by going over the LT.

    When you are a Playoff Bubble Team that is more of a lower Tier Playoff Team that gets swept in 4 games in the 1st round....you prepare for the worst and you modestly build upon whatever you have.

    Now....I agree...being a Small Market Team.....while being considered a mediocre Middling Playoff Bubble Team...doesn't help the situation when it comes to spending. But it's not about being a Small Market Team or not....it's about being on the cusp of competing at the highest level or not.

    For example....a few years back...we made that trade for Scola in exchange for a 1st+Plumlee. Making a move for ( who we considered ) a solid Player back then to bolster the existing core back then made sense because we were perennial 2nd Round Playoff team. See? It makes sense then. But making such a move like that now is a gamble. Now, I understand why Bird would trade a 1st round pick or Myles....because it will be a last season effort to build a better Team around PG13 in the hopes of convincing him to stay. But unless such a move nets an ELITE Player without gutting the Team while addressing the many other flaws of this Team.....we will just be spinning our wheels again.
    Last edited by CableKC; 04-26-2017, 03:04 PM.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

      Another thing is Simon acting like they are losing money year after year when the team value is increasing 10% or more every year, are the Pacers worth a billion yet? my guess is with the right buyer they can get close to that.



      Well 800 mil http://www.basketballinsiders.com/fo...nba-franchise/



      So less say they are losing money (they are not) but less say they are losing 10mil per year, wouldn't they still make money by the franchise increasing in value every year anyways? the spending money thing is a bit of an excuse if you think about it.
      Last edited by vnzla81; 04-26-2017, 03:06 PM.
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        He blocked me on twitter (together with Peter Vecsey) because I didn't agree with their mancrush on West, he will go 0 for 15 and they would talk about all the other **** he did and what a great leader and blah blah blah (I think West is friends with Vecsey or something).

        I used to have conversations with Vecsey but as soon as I **** on West he blocked me LOL
        LOL....vnzla81....master troll of the NBA Beat Writers.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          So less say they are losing money (they are not) but less say they are losing 10mil per year, wouldn't they still make money by the franchise increasing in value every year anyways? the spending money thing is a bit of an excuse if you think about it.
          Players will take shares in the team instead of cash? I don't think that's in the NBA CBA. Now, in the ABA...
          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


          • #50
            Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            Players will take shares in the team instead of cash? I don't think that's in the NBA CBA. Now, in the ABA...
            That's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is that if after you pay players by going over the cap or whatever that even an small team like the Pacers can make a profit, and even if they don't the team is still increasing in value at the highest rate ever making up for the supposed loses.


            Teams that were bought for 30mil are selling for a billion plus, the excuse that the poor owners are having a hard time to put a team together because they can't go over the cap is a bit of an exaggeration.



            Edit: well the link I posted show the Pacers making $138mil with operation cost at $19 mil, the team is making a lot of money.
            Last edited by vnzla81; 04-26-2017, 03:17 PM.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              Another thing is Simon acting like they are losing money year after year when the team value is increasing 10% or more every year, are the Pacers worth a billion yet? my guess is with the right buyer they can get close to that.



              Well 800 mil http://www.basketballinsiders.com/fo...nba-franchise/



              So less say they are losing money (they are not) but less say they are losing 10mil per year, wouldn't they still make money by the franchise increasing in value every year anyways? the spending money thing is a bit of an excuse if you think about it.
              Well, that is the franchise value on paper. But it isn't realized unless it is sold at that price. You still have to pay the bills in the meantime as any sale of the franchise could be years or decades away.

              One other thing. Simon's mall properties have to be suffering big time like many mall properties around the country are. I wonder how that fits in.
              Last edited by Tom White; 04-26-2017, 03:22 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

                Originally posted by immortality View Post
                Umm, Jefferson, Young (you could argue the point, but he is getting paid 14 million because of the trade ticker), even Scola, Stuckey, Ellis, ? How many of these players actually moved the needle on our team, or people were really like, we are going to contend be a top 3 team now. I can only think of Young.
                Jefferson is an expiring this year, so that's not killing the future

                Thad can be a contributor on a contender. Looking at PFs he is reasonably paid for his production. Not sure how this mortgages the future, he's 28

                Scola was 6th most in minutes on a team that finished number one in the East in went to ECF

                Ellis is an expiring

                Stuckey was cut as an expiring

                So how have these guys cost our future?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

                  Kravitz is factually incorrect about one thing at least - the Pacers have paid luxury tax before. But that was a long time ago, during the Reggie era when the rules were different and the penalties not as harsh.

                  Once it was said that the Pacers' spending limit was up to the luxury tax threshold. But I can't help but notice (and Kravitz makes the same point) that the Pacers have stayed several million below the lux tax threshold now for several years. Hence the thought that the Pacers may have a spending budget which is below the luxury tax level.

                  This doesn't actually prove anything of course. But it's looked suspicious to me for a while.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

                    Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                    Jefferson is an expiring this year, so that's not killing the future

                    Thad can be a contributor on a contender. Looking at PFs he is reasonably paid for his production. Not sure how this mortgages the future, he's 28

                    Scola was 6th most in minutes on a team that finished number one in the East in went to ECF

                    Ellis is an expiring

                    Stuckey was cut as an expiring

                    So how have these guys cost our future?
                    Then why is everyone saying we don't have capspace for this year? Because of Jefferson and Ellis. There was no need to sign those contracts. What happens in Ellis picks up his player option.

                    Thad can't be a starter on a 50 win team, do you want to pay 14 million to a 6th man ?

                    What I'm saying is Larry preaches patience, but he does the exact opposite.

                    If our budget is limited, you would think Larry would be much more careful.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

                      Originally posted by immortality View Post
                      Then why is everyone saying we don't have capspace for this year? Because of Jefferson and Ellis. There was no need to sign those contracts. What happens in Ellis picks up his player option.
                      We can cut Ellis and void his player option, like Stuckey and stretch Al. They are bad contracts this year, but when you said future I thought you meant later.

                      But it still remains to be seen if we can't trade them as expirings and how bad they hurt our future.

                      Originally posted by immortality View Post
                      Thad can't be a starter on a 50 win team, do you want to pay 14 million to a 6th man ?
                      14 million for a 6th man will be a bargain this offseason

                      Originally posted by immortality View Post
                      What I'm saying is Larry preaches patience, but he does the exact opposite.

                      If our budget is limited, you would think Larry would be much more careful.
                      I agree that Larry preaches one thing and does another, but the Pacers haven't mortgaged the future. Again, we don't have any long term deals and have all our picks.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

                        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                        Kravitz is factually incorrect about one thing at least - the Pacers have paid luxury tax before. But that was a long time ago, during the Reggie era when the rules were different and the penalties not as harsh.

                        Once it was said that the Pacers' spending limit was up to the luxury tax threshold. But I can't help but notice (and Kravitz makes the same point) that the Pacers have stayed several million below the lux tax threshold now for several years. Hence the thought that the Pacers may have a spending budget which is below the luxury tax level.

                        This doesn't actually prove anything of course. But it's looked suspicious to me for a while.
                        Kravitz responded to this...





                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

                          I don't get the vitriol over a paid mouthpiece. If you know the team is paying him to write puff pieces just don't read it. Don't blame the guy for doing his job.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            I don't get the vitriol over a paid mouthpiece. If you know the team is paying him to write puff pieces just don't read it. Don't blame the guy for doing his job.
                            Exactly

                            His stories are posted on Pacers.com, I don't get it either. Sometimes he drops some interesting facts the team wanted out there, but other than that it's just puff pieces.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              Edit: well the link I posted show the Pacers making $138mil with operation cost at $19 mil, the team is making a lot of money.
                              "Operating Income" is not the costs. It is what is left after most (but not all) the costs are taken out. Most people acknowledged that the bump from the new TV revenue was going to put them in the black. But losing the income share of LT and then having to pay the LT takes that back negative really damn fast (never mind that you increase your payroll costs by millions which reduces that number even more directly).

                              Of course, the argument is that this is all lies and that the owners have been bilking the city and fans out of millions of dollars for years, but that's a whole other can of worms.
                              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


                              • #60
                                Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

                                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                                "Operating Income" is not the costs. It is what is left after most (but not all) the costs are taken out. Most people acknowledged that the bump from the new TV revenue was going to put them in the black. But losing the income share of LT and then having to pay the LT takes that back negative really damn fast (never mind that you increase your payroll costs by millions which reduces that number even more directly).

                                Of course, the argument is that this is all lies and that the owners have been bilking the city and fans out of millions of dollars for years, but that's a whole other can of worms.
                                Well, my argument is who cares if an NBA owner isn't making money. They get free stadiums and tons of tax help, while the value of their hobby keeps going up. I'm sure they are actually profiting in some way from having the team, but I don't think it matters when the value of their hobby keeps rising.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X