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

Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

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

  • #31
    Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

    Don't get me started on Nelson Skalbania.

    If the Pacers/Simons paid for 60% of the Fieldhouse, which I seem to remember, will the city pay them for the residual?

    Also, since the additional money from the suites means the Pacers themselves are making a profit not including the operational expenses, wouldn't that mean they were correct about the Fieldhouse?
    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


    • #32
      Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

      Originally posted by MarionDeputy View Post
      I would support that if the users of the facillity paid rent for it. Essentially the Pacers and Colts, want state of the art stadiums but don't want pay or contribute even a share to pay for them, they don't want to pay anything to operate the stadiums even on days where it's their private business operating,they then want to collect all the revenue on game days and even revenue on non-game activities, and give nothing to their landlords.

      I guess I got problems with that.
      You have to look at it like the big venues look at concerts or top-tier shows like Cirque. These shows pay a "rental fee" and keep the majority of the revenue. If the CIB wants a bigger cut of the revenue, then they would also have to be willing to take some of the variable financial hit, which they don't.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

        Originally posted by TheDanimal View Post
        I'm curious, I'm not a big NHL fan by any means...but has the city ever looked at bringing in a NHL team to help out? I'd think an NHL and NBA team would be able to split the costs of the arena easily. I know many teams in the NHL move around alot, and it seems like Indiana would be an ok fit, atleast better than Phoenix. Thoughts?
        The NHL team may take half the costs, but they'd canabalize ticket sales from the Pacers and Indians. More entertainment competition wouldn't help in this case.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
          I live in Florida and don't pay Indiana taxs and don't go to Pacer games. If the Pacers move I will still follow them, so I'm really an outsider looking in.

          It appears to me after reading all the threads that the only sensible thing to do is for the city to take over the running of CFH. That appears to be the only choice and everything else is just talk.

          It's simple math. You lose the Pacers and you have to take over running CFH anyway, but you lose what the Pacers bring in.

          Well, if you put it that way, maybe something can be worked out.
          The Pacers are an Indiana institution, almost like one class basketball used to be.
          Oops, bad analogy :-). It seems like Canseco could somehow be made profitable.
          {o,o}
          |)__)
          -"-"-

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

            The hidden hint I don't think anyone is getting is where Simon says this: "I have no thought of leaving Indiana," he said. "Only a thought of preserving the Pacers and keeping them in Indiana. That's the only issue right here."

            That to me means the Pacers could very well move, but they may just move elsewhere in Indiana. Where? Who knows.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

              Originally posted by Evan_The_Dude View Post
              The hidden hint I don't think anyone is getting is where Simon says this: "I have no thought of leaving Indiana," he said. "Only a thought of preserving the Pacers and keeping them in Indiana. That's the only issue right here."

              That to me means the Pacers could very well move, but they may just move elsewhere in Indiana. Where? Who knows.
              Eh.......I really don't see what you are seeing there at all.

              "I have no thought of leaving Indiana."

              "Only a thought of preserving the Pacers and keeping them in Indiana."

              Those two sentences say the exact same thing.

              Unless you are talking about moving them to a suburb like Carmel or something? Because let me tell you the 2nd biggest city in the state is Fort Wayne and there is no way in hell we can support a NBA team here. Not now........yeah we had the Pistons like 60 years ago or whatever it was....we are a minor league town now. And after Fort Wayne you aren't going to find any other cities in the state capable of supporting a NBA team.

              Of course the Chicago Bears did threaten to move to Gary, Indiana at one time. LOL

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

                Originally posted by Speed View Post

                I guess what does running the fieldhouse consist of Electric bill, ticket takers, and Green Jackets, along with the Parking and consessions.
                I would imagine the Pacers have to pay for insurance to carry on CFH , and I bet it is UNGODLY .. definitely in the MILLIONS per year ..


                Plus you have the property taxes which I'd imagine are as equally high , if not higher .. ( the owner of CFH has to pay this though )

                Not sure what all the Pacers take personally are responsible for as far as CFH , but I imagine it is a ridiculous amount of money..
                "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


                • #38
                  Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

                  Originally posted by count55 View Post
                  Well, the Racers were a WHA team...which was actually an off shoot major league similar to the AFL or ABA, but the others were minor league teams.

                  But consider this from Bill Simmons' "No Benjamins Association" column:
                  And the funny thing is that I never knew Gretzky played his first professional hockey in Indy for the Racers, not to mention Mark Messier was on the Racers roster for a couple of games. I only found that out when I moved up to Ottawa.
                  "I mean, you'd walk into our dressing room and run into Mel Daniels holding a .45 -- it makes you wonder."

                  Bob Netolicky

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

                    The absolute loudest I ever heard MSA was during a Racers playoff game and Kim Clarkson was the bully of the league. (Pre-Artest psychology).
                    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Article in Defense of the Simons

                      I saw this on Indy Cornrows:

                      Bill Benner
                      IBJ
                      http://www.ibj.com/html/detail_page.asp?content=33554

                      From the department of no good deed goes unpunished, I present to you Herb and Mel Simon.

                      You know, those “greedy billionaires” who have done so little for this city over the years.

                      Except to keep their business here and grow it into the largest of its kind in the country.

                      Except to personally employ thousands of Hoosiers and serve as the economic engine that has put countless others to work.

                      Except to erase the blight by filling in those holes in the heart of downtown with that little thing called Circle Centre mall.

                      Except to donate millions upon millions of dollars to local charities, hospitals, not for-profits … you name it.

                      Except to rescue the Indiana Pacers from out-of-state ownership—remember Sam Nassi?—26 years ago when no one else wanted them. Even if it meant absorbing enormous losses along the way. They did it not because they enjoy losing money, but because they considered the Pacers an important community asset worth saving (Quick quiz: Want to know how to become a millionaire? Start out as a billionaire and buy a small-market NBA team.)

                      Sure, they’re rich guys and you know what? Good for them. I wish I had the business savvy and personal chutzpah to be able to walk a mile or two in their Italian loafers.

                      I’m also old enough to recall a time in America when accumulation of wealth and providing livelihoods for others wasn’t considered an awful thing.

                      And unless I’m mistaken, there never has been a hint of scandal about how they advanced their fortunes. What I do know is that they took risks, and the risks paid off. They’re self-made men. Again, a trait that once was admired in this country.

                      Yet now they—younger brother Herb, especially—are being pilloried for bringing the Pacers’ financials problems to light and asking for relief with the operating expenses of Conseco Fieldhouse.

                      Suffice it to say there’s plenty of blame to go around for the fine mess the Pacers and the Capital Improvement Board find themselves in. But any criticism of the Simons must be kept in the perspective of their positive influence on Indianapolis and their investment in the Pacers.

                      I hasten to remind everyone that this is not a franchise that arrived via Mayflower moving vans (and that’s not a knock on the Colts) but was born of the blood, sweat and tears of good Indiana people who had the vision long ago of using professional basketball as a catalyst to make our burg a better place.

                      Herb and Mel Simon sustained that vision and never uttered a complaint through year after year of losing money.

                      Yet there’s a lot of undeserved garbage being tossed in their direction, balanced by little appreciation of the immense contribution they have played in the city’s development.

                      As for the Pacers, absolutely, beginning with The Brawl in Detroit, they had a bad run. But the last “incident” took place long ago. With Herb Simon’s imperative and direct involvement, this franchise has cleaned up its act and is putting forth a team that is busting its collective rear end and playing close to the maximum of its potential.

                      In a sincere attempt to reconnect to the public, the Pacers have offered tickets for as low as five bucks. That’s less than a movie. Oh, and even as they continue to lose money, the Pacers have announced an across-the-board reduction in season-ticket prices for next year.

                      Among NBA owners, few if any have worked or lobbied harder than Herb Simon in trying to convince Commissioner David Stern that the NBA salary and revenuesharing structure is out of whack. That’s not a fight he’s waging just for his own benefit, but for the good of the league, especially with two-thirds of the teams—including virtually all the midsize and small markets—bleeding red ink.

                      Unbelievably, Stern continues to put on a happy face about the state of his league. Wonder if he’ll still feel the same way when the NBA’s down to 16 teams.

                      By all accounts—especially his own—Herb Simon’s commitment to the Pacers is unwavering. Just like the commitment the Simons made to the city years ago.

                      Imagine Indianapolis without the jobs they’ve created. Imagine Indianapolis without the Pacers, or the fieldhouse, or Circle Centre, or a revitalized downtown, or the millions they’ve donated to charities.

                      A better place? I, for one, think not. And I’m glad the greedy billionaires chose Indianapolis as their home. •

                      Benner is director of communications for the Indianapolis Convention & Visitors Association and a former sports columnist for The Indianapolis Star. His column appears weekly. Listen to his podcast via podcast at www.ibj.com. He can be reached at bbenner@ibj.com. Benner also has a blog, www.indyinsights.com.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

                        I wish he hadn't written this. I agree with his defense of the Simons, but Benner is such a toadie, he doesn't persuade anyone.


                        BUT!!

                        What about this part? Is he right? Where does he get this information?


                        Originally posted by Bill Benner
                        especially with two-thirds of the teams—including virtually all the midsize and small markets—bleeding red ink.
                        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: Article in Defense of the Simons

                          Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                          I wish he hadn't written this. I agree with his defense of the Simons, but Benner is such a toadie, he doesn't persuade anyone.


                          BUT!!

                          What about this part? Is he right? Where does he get this information?
                          That sentence caught my eye as well. The only teams I have heard that are struggling are Pacers, Grizzlies, Hornets. A better profit sharing model has to come to the NBA or they will start losing teams.
                          Turn out the lights, this party's over!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

                            Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                            I wish he hadn't written this. I agree with his defense of the Simons, but Benner is such a toadie, he doesn't persuade anyone.

                            BUT!!

                            What about this part? Is he right? Where does he get this information?
                            I was alwas hot and cold on Benner. I think that regardless of how anyone feels about Benner and all of the columns he wrote through the years as sports editor, they will look beyond that because they cannot deny a single word that he has written.

                            For weeks I've been totally peeved reading comments made by some of our own forum members who state that the Simons can stick it. I know that some of these comments were just lashing out, made out of anger, and possibly fear and perhaps a little panic.

                            But emotions aside, unless one is under the age of 20 or so, one would have to be an absolute fool not to know or see what the Simons have done for Indianapolis.

                            And now, all Herb wants to do is to "get the Pacer house in order" before passing the team on to one of his heirs. Again, unless one is an ostrich with his head buried in the sand, this is an obvious attempt by Herb to once again protect the interests of Indianapolis by doing everything he is capable of doing to keep the team here.

                            I don't know if he has enough years left to make the team a money-maker, or if that is even possible considering the present NBA business model (particularly the salary and contract strucutres) and the fact that we are a small market team. But a reasonable goal might be to pass it on when it is not such a huge money-loser. Maybe then the selected heir will be willing to leave matters as they are and keep the team where it belongs; in Indy.

                            I for one, have great respect for Herb Simon's efforts; they cerainly are not something to be scorned as some on here have done.

                            As for Benner's comment regarding the number of losing teams, I'm not certain who was the first to say that the number of losers was 1/2 or 2/3 or whatever, but it seems like most of the folks that speak about the NBA's economics reference that figure. Other's just say that "only a handful" are profitable or that "not many" are profitable. A good place to start for a more legitimate reference might be Forbes.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

                              The NBA needs to change how it works financially.
                              {o,o}
                              |)__)
                              -"-"-

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

                                I can't help but wonder if the Pacers would be in this situation had the Brawl not happened... a part of me realizes this is a small market, and the Pacers haven't been a very good team for the past 3-4-5 years, and that *could* be all it takes to put a team at a major disadvantage in this economy... but there's that part of me that thinks the Pacers as a business would be a tad better off at the moment had Artest not gone into the stands... that put such a bad taste in everyone's mouth outside of Indiana, even casual fans from across the nation were spitting venom at the Pacers for that. It really hurt the organization.
                                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X