Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

IBJ: Pacers' troubles bad for city, too

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

  • #31
    Re: IBJ: Pacers' troubles bad for city, too

    My response was to the tone and content of the article. Regardless of reputation what you say and how you present it are the final word on any given piece, and this article reads like a standard post-loss, post-incident online rant.

    We all know that joe 6 AND mr. big wig share the same passions for sports and are equally likely to rant. To me this comes off as more rant and less polished business or community concerns.


    Oh and by the way, do you need IBJ to tell the Simons that local corporations will only support a team that appears headed in the right direction? Wow, shocking.

    Everyone is citing the sea of green. You think the Pacers don't know about that? What, Bird never peeks inside the arena during game time? No one from the Simons ownership is checking the books?

    You don't have to TELL the Pacers "we want to support you but you have to give us something to support". That's like saying "hey, make some good food for a fair price and we'll come to your restaurant".

    Does anyone really think the Pacers are trying to present a product going nowhere? Hell no.

    The advice they need is not that things need to change. The advice they need is HOW TO CHANGE IT. Realistically that is. Smart changes that address BOTH talent and finances. That means that Tins for a rack of basketballs ain't cutting it.

    The only other content I read is that the Simons shouldn't expect the public bailout that THEY HAVEN'T EVEN ASKED FOR!

    Peck, you better not even expect me to send down $200 worth of beer to your section the next game I come to. I mean it. Until you shape up just stop expecting me to do that.

    I mean it's a non-issue. The story becomes relevant only if he cites some real rumblings that this kind of request is pending. Then you have something, and more so if such a request became real.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: IBJ: Pacers' troubles bd for city, too

      Originally posted by Tyrion View Post
      I decided that I didn't want to support the Tinsley, Jackson, ONeal Pacers anymore after the 05/06 season. I fully expected Tinsley and Jackson to be gone. When they weren't, I decided to stop going to games. I used to go to about 25 games a year. In the last 2 years, I have been to one game, and that was because I was given second row center court seats for the Nuggets game this fall.

      I still watch some Pacers games on tv, but in years past I never, ever missed a game (at least on tape) since the late 80s. For me, I have to say that the lack of basketball IQ is a bigger reason for my lack of support than the appalling way the Pacers represent this city.
      Yet if you find out that Tins and JO are out for a game do you then go to make the point that "with them=not me, without them=I'm there"?

      If you're the sort of person that just wants to avoid seeing those players represent the Pacers you've had more than enough chances to do so this year.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: IBJ: Pacers' troubles bad for city, too

        Originally posted by Irk Woodsman View Post
        Think we could get rid of the Pacer's and get an MLB team in Indy?
        Our first two acquisitions? Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: IBJ: Pacers' troubles bd for city, too

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
          Yet if you find out that Tins and JO are out for a game do you then go to make the point that "with them=not me, without them=I'm there"?

          If you're the sort of person that just wants to avoid seeing those players represent the Pacers you've had more than enough chances to do so this year.

          That's a great question. To answer your question, no, I still don't go to the game, but I'm way more likely to watch the game on tv. Certainly, when those guys aren't playing, I can watch and think about what the future might hold. I have no problem following and supporting a team that is bad, but clearly has a philosophy about how to build for the future.

          I don't like the way Tinsley plays basketball, and I'm embarrassed that he represents our city. I have never liked the way he plays basketball. Since his antics with the dustpan and subsequent idiocy, I have been embarrassed by him.

          With JO, I have never particularly liked the way he plays either. This has been discussed enough on this board, but to me he is a perfect example of a guy who never really learned certain fundamentals and got by with fantastic talent. Has he gotten better in the last 4-5 years? I don't know, he seems to pass the ball better than he did...otherwise, not really. As far as a representative of the team I grew up following and the city, I give him a C minus. He says all the right things, between whining about this that and the other. He says all the right things, but his best friends are reportedly guys like Bonzi Wells. He says all the right things, but I will never get the image of him running across the court to lay out that little guy in Detroit....worst image of the brawl.

          While those guys are here, I will keep following Pacer basketball by watching an occasional game on tv (although since I don't have cable, it requires a trip to a sports bar), and listening on the radio on my commutes. And I will spend my entertainment dollars going to watch Butler basketball at Hinkle.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: IBJ: Pacers' troubles bad for city, too

            Really , the only reason I don't go to Pacers games , is because the outrageous prices for tickets .. To even remotely have a decent view of the action you are going to spend around $100 for 1 ticket .. Now If I am going to a game , I am taking someone with me.. so right there you have around $200 just in tix , not to mention spending another $20 for parking ..
            Hell I would love to see them for 1 or 2 games.. just GIVE tickets for FREE to get people in the seats.. as a promo thing.. sometimes it takes losing money to make money...

            They wanna get more people in the stands right now .. they have to do a few things..


            FIRST lower the ticket prices and make them more affordable to the casual fan .. and offer group rates for 2 or more tix ..

            2nd .. get rid of Tinsley
            3rd.. JO needs to get HEALTHY , or be traded after the pre-season , if he cannot..
            4th .. We need another dominant low-post BIG MAN .. bar none .. JO cant do it all by himself ... not with Foster or Murph subbing in for him off the bench instead of playing ALONG side him..
            5th , we need to get another good PG , Diener is still considered a rookie , (damn good for that if you ask me) , but I dont think he is quite ready to lead the team "just yet".. but in due time..



            I honestly think that when a team has very little home-court fan support.. that they just don't get that spark to win at home.. let alone on the road...
            I guarantee you that right now , EVEN with the lineup we currently have out on the floor, that if we had awesome fan support cheering us on, that you would see a massive turnaround in the WINS we rack up..

            just look at how good we played in the pre-season , and up untill december... not only was our defense effective , but we were getting wins


            As far as our players go.. Out of all the players we have , the ones I can truly say I enjoy watching , and are an integral part off our team , would be Granger , Dunleavy, Diener , J.O. , and Foster...

            I LIKE Murphy and Ike Diogu , but I am still undecided on Shawn Williams , Graham and Owens ....

            I dont like Tinsley... He wore out his welcome a few years ago with me...
            Last edited by Kemo; 02-06-2008, 06:38 PM.
            "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: IBJ: Pacers' troubles bd for city, too

              Originally posted by Tyrion View Post
              That's a great question. To answer your question, no, I still don't go to the game, but I'm way more likely to watch the game on tv. Certainly, when those guys aren't playing, I can watch and think about what the future might hold. I have no problem following and supporting a team that is bad, but clearly has a philosophy about how to build for the future.

              I don't like the way Tinsley plays basketball, and I'm embarrassed that he represents our city. I have never liked the way he plays basketball. Since his antics with the dustpan and subsequent idiocy, I have been embarrassed by him.

              With JO, I have never particularly liked the way he plays either. This has been discussed enough on this board, but to me he is a perfect example of a guy who never really learned certain fundamentals and got by with fantastic talent. Has he gotten better in the last 4-5 years? I don't know, he seems to pass the ball better than he did...otherwise, not really. As far as a representative of the team I grew up following and the city, I give him a C minus. He says all the right things, between whining about this that and the other. He says all the right things, but his best friends are reportedly guys like Bonzi Wells. He says all the right things, but I will never get the image of him running across the court to lay out that little guy in Detroit....worst image of the brawl.

              While those guys are here, I will keep following Pacer basketball by watching an occasional game on tv (although since I don't have cable, it requires a trip to a sports bar), and listening on the radio on my commutes. And I will spend my entertainment dollars going to watch Butler basketball at Hinkle.
              Thank you for your honest reply's.

              Please post more often. I think often times that we as fans on here get so into the day to day operations of the team that we sometimes can't step back and see the big picture.

              I think you have done a very good job of pointing that out for us.


              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: IBJ: Pacers' troubles bad for city, too

                Originally posted by Kemo View Post
                Really , the only reason I don't go to Pacers games , is because the outrageous prices for tickets .. To even remotely have a decent view of the action you are going to spend around $100 for 1 ticket .. Now If I am going to a game , I am taking someone with me.. so right there you have around $200 just in tix , not to mention spending another $20 for parking
                I had good seats in section 1 this year that were $35, there are a few close parking spots that are around $5. It can be cheap entertainment, the problem for me is that going to a Pacer game isn't all that entertaining anymore.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: IBJ: Pacers' troubles bad for city, too

                  Originally posted by Irk Woodsman View Post
                  I had good seats in section 1 this year that were $35, there are a few close parking spots that are around $5. It can be cheap entertainment, the problem for me is that going to a Pacer game isn't all that entertaining anymore.
                  You're right, I have season tickets, but until we get back on the right track, it seems like lately I've been obligated to go.

                  BTW, parking has been cheap. $2 rooftop Delaware St. garage.
                  Last edited by duke dynamite; 02-06-2008, 07:25 PM. Reason: Spelling.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: IBJ: Pacers' troubles bad for city, too

                    The last 6-7 years have been a culture shock as much as anything. When you look back to the NBA finals teams and the 90s clubs leading up to those, you see a group of generally good citizens, college degreed, reasonably articulate guys that average, middle-class guy in the stands could relate to regardless of color:

                    Miller, Smits, the Davises, Mullin, McKey, Jackson, Croshere, Scott, etc.

                    If you had to pick the guys who were maybe the least professional due to attitudes or minor things, there weren't many and their offenses were relatively minor: Workman maybe with the booze, Jalen, and maybe DD with his little bust after he left us. We had a great group of people on those teams.

                    The team played more of a throwback style with nice spacing, perimeter shooting, and good ball movement. The guys were generally at the end of their careers.

                    Fast forward to the next generation. The league had been changing while we were in the bubble that was a stable Pacers team. Almost overnight, we got a lot younger and many new guys were 10-12 years younger than the old generation. We went from crew cuts and a late 80s way of doing things in 1999 to a very normal way of doing things by 2002. We went along willingly because we were winning but I think there was a disconnect for a lot of people. Winning was just a band aid. The poor citizenship by some of more recent guys hasn't helped, but I think people are a little shell shocked by the huge change in culture a few years back regardless of what is thrown out on the court.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: IBJ: Pacers' troubles bad for city, too

                      Originally posted by Irk Woodsman View Post
                      Think we could get rid of the Pacer's and get an MLB team in Indy?
                      That would be a good day

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: IBJ: Pacers' troubles bad for city, too

                        There is a rule on here that we mustn't be discourteous to other members of the forum, and ol' Neddie is the last guy who would want to do that anyway. I wouldn't even be aware of the objectionable comments discussed below if it weren't for so many others violating the excellent "grace rule."

                        Anyway, somebody (I ain't saying who) is full of baloney. (Can I say baloney without getting banned?) Stridently, persistently and undeniably full of baloney.

                        In a reply to Peck, somebody "calls BS" on the attitude of the casual fan. He claims they are wrong in believing that the Pacers' roster harbors too many players with blots on their records or that the organization has been too tolerant of bad behavior. Look at how this unnamed (and highly esteemed) fellow poster of ours summarizes the Pacers roster changes:

                        Ron - gone
                        Jack - gone
                        Al - gone (spoke poorly of the situation and ended up benched for it even)
                        Shawne - suspended
                        Harrison - suspended, though not by the Pacers...of course that wasn't an option on the table till the NBA notified the team via his suspension. And he struggles to get PT, even under Rick.

                        Who's really left? Tins. And he wasn't even playing until a few days ago.
                        To hear him tell it, there has been a clean sweep except for Tinsley. Well, phooey! Harrison is still on the team! Williams is still on the team (his peccadilloes forgiven but not forgotten)! Tinsley is still on the team! JO, who threw his share of punches at the Palace, is still on the team! Plus I note the failure to mention Daniels, who, as of this moment, still faces criminal charges in an Indianapolis court and is still on the team!

                        I don't know if he left those details out to spin his argument, or if he doesn't remember details too well, but he seems not a very good source of information about the Pacers' roster. He's not a very good source of information about social behavior, either. He says,

                        "Not one fan (new or old) would return to Conseco if Tins was traded...."
                        And a couple of minutes later, Tyrion responds:

                        Originally posted by Tyrion
                        I would.
                        Our esteemed colleague was wrong in his assertion about public behavior. And boldly wrong at that. We are all wrong from time to time, but few or none of us is as proudly, aggressively wrong is he is about this issue.

                        Let the record show that our buddy is an engineer. (Will I get banned if I call him an engineer?) He can tell you anything you need to know about watts and volts and picofarads and ohms. But being an engineer doesn't qualify him to discuss consumer behavior with any authority. To get that, you'd need an economist, which I happen to be. And you know what? I have no idea what people are going to do. There are dozens of factors that play into consumer choices. In electronics "either-or" situations are common. Flip the switch on and the light glows; flip it off and it stops. On. Off. On. Off. It is perfectly reliable and predictable. But people aren't like that. The people who stopped attending Pacers games for any reason will not necessarily resume attending if and when that reason changes. They may have found an alternative form of entertainment they prefer to the Pacers.

                        I cheerfully admit that I don't know what tens of thousands of people I've never met are going to do at some uncertain point in the future. It boggles my mind that this engineer thinks he does.

                        Later in the thread, he advises another member to adopt a pattern of behavior he summarizes as:

                        with them=not me, without them=I'm there
                        Notice the engineerishness. He admits one causal variable, and posits that the outcome (Tyrion's consumer choices) should hinge on that variable only. Well, in addition to being naive, the suggestion is pointless. He suggests that this behavior would "make a point." I'm surprised that a math expert, as I've no doubt our engineer pal is, would commit such a howler.

                        Certainly TPTB is aware of the poor home attendance. But who thinks they are going to notice and say, "Hey, lookit! We had 8,799 empty seats at that game, and only 8,798 empty seats at that one. Never mind what night of the week it was or who we played or what else was happening in Indy that night or what promotions we were running. Find out which players were sitting!"

                        Suggesting that one guy deliberately attending games when certain unliked players are on the bench can be an effective way of "making a point" is just about the funniest thing anyone has posted on this forum since Sassan and Earl went away.


                        "He calls it using his intuition, but I call it crap, and it gets me very irritated, because it is not logical."
                        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


                        • #42
                          Re: IBJ: Pacers' troubles bad for city, too

                          Originally posted by Kemo View Post
                          Really , the only reason I don't go to Pacers games , is because the outrageous prices for tickets .. To even remotely have a decent view of the action you are going to spend around $100 for 1 ticket .. Now If I am going to a game , I am taking someone with me.. so right there you have around $200 just in tix , not to mention spending another $20 for parking ..
                          Hell I would love to see them for 1 or 2 games.. just GIVE tickets for FREE to get people in the seats.. as a promo thing.. sometimes it takes losing money to make money...

                          They wanna get more people in the stands right now .. they have to do a few things..


                          FIRST lower the ticket prices and make them more affordable to the casual fan .. and offer group rates for 2 or more tix ..

                          $20 dollars for parking? $20 dollars will allow you to drive right to your seat. There isn't any place that charges $20 for parking. $8.00 gets you into the parking garage that is attached to Conseco, you never have to walk outside, the tunnel is heated, never have to walk in the rain or snow and ice. For $8.00 dollars.

                          $100 for a ticket? I spend $81.00 and I am 14 rows off the floor. I suppose if you want to be in the lower bowl and can't sit in the corners or behind the baskets, then yes it will cost you more than $100.00 - but all those seats I believe are sold out anyway.

                          As far as giving tickets way for free. (I've mentioned this before) but you really can't do that on any continued basis. If they started giving away tickets for free, what incentive do I have to buy season tickets. It would be disrespectful to season ticket holders. "so I have been buying season tickets for 15 years, paying full price and now all of a sudden you are giving free tickets away to people who maybe have never paid for a ticket in their entire life" I would be insulted and upset.
                          Last edited by Unclebuck; 02-07-2008, 10:25 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: IBJ: Pacers' troubles bad for city, too

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            As far as giving tickets way for free. (I've mentioned this before) but you really can't do that on any continued basis. If they started giving away tickets for free, what incentive do I have to buy season tickets. It would be disrespectful to season ticket holders. "so I have been buying season tickets for 15 years, paying full price and now all of a sudden you are giving free tickets away to people who maybe have never paid for a ticket in their entire life" I would be insulted and upset.
                            So credit season ticket holders with a discount equal to a free ticket when they buy their season tickets next year for each time you give away tickets in their section. I'd think that would be fair and can't imagine it would be too hard to sell. Heck, give season ticket holders 1.5x credit and it doesn't cost much more while giving them a reward for their loyalty.

                            From another point of view, would you really be upset if the Pacers gave away $10 or $20 tickets? Would you - as a season ticket holder at your level - have chosen not to buy your season tickets because you had a chance to get maybe 3 or 4 free tickets a year in the upper bowl?

                            The whole thing is that you have to be creative (I know, not a word often associated with Pacers' marketing, but still). Selling "if we get the Fieldhouse filled your season ticket buys a better fan experience" shouldn't be that hard.
                            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


                            • #44
                              Re: IBJ: Pacers' troubles bad for city, too

                              Not only is the $20 for parking just totally wrong, but I strongly disagree that you need a $100 ticket to have a decent view of the action. I pay for season tickets that amount to $25 a game (if you were to buy a single ticket) and that puts me in the first row of the balcony. I can see the action just fine.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: IBJ: Pacers' troubles bad for city, too

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post

                                As far as giving tickets way for free. (I've mentioned this before) but you really can't do that on any continued basis. If they started giving away tickets for free, what incentive do I have to buy season tickets. It would be disrespectful to season ticket holders. "so I have been buying season tickets for 15 years, paying full price and now all of a sudden you are giving free tickets away to people who maybe have never paid for a ticket in their entire life" I would be insulted and upset.
                                There are ways to do that such as offering the freebies thru season ticket holders. Plus, the Pacers have already been sending out notices offering "buy one get one free" lower bowl tickets a couple of times this season.

                                They did it for the Detroit and San Antonio games IIRC.

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

                                ------

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

                                -John Wooden

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X