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

RTV 6 | Panel Passes CIB Bailout ; Colts Refuse (Post 56)

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

  • #46
    Re: WTHR | Lawmakers propose $45M plan to fund CIB, Pacers

    Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
    That break we got on our season ticket prices is only temporary, then.

    :P
    If you are "locked" into a package can the Pacer's raise the price after the agreement?

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: WTHR | Lawmakers propose $45M plan to fund CIB, Pacers

      Originally posted by BillS
      Pacer gear has returned to a prominent place in retail establishments, especially at places like the airport. These stores aren't doing it for the hype factor, they would only do it if such gear was a draw and was, in fact, selling again.
      I'm sure you are correct about jersey and cap sales, but I don't think it proves that the Pacers' reputation is restored.


      Marketing the Pacers is a wheewj task. Thanks to Abel, we know that Conseco Fieldhouse holds 18,354 seats. Omitting exhibition games, that means 752,514 seat to sell for a season. (Of course selling out every game is unlikely, but the marketing department is there to aim for that.)

      How many of those 752,514 seats are sold to a devout fan? I don't know the Pacers' season ticket sales, but the NBA league-wide sales for full-season tickets was 8,500 per team this year. That would get you 348,500 seats sold to Pacers season ticket holders, leaving 404,014 empty seats unless casual fans show up. Or, if Pacers season ticket sales was nearer the low-end of 5,800 per game, then only 237,800 seats are sold to season ticket holders and 514,714 remain empty.

      Let's assume the latter. And let's assume that the typical casual fan will buy three tickets and attend two games. That would mean that the Pacers need to establish a buying relationship with 85,786 ticket-buying families or groups of casual fans in order to sell out.

      I respect and admire the season ticket holders. (Especially the ones who leave their seats empty for me to poach during the second half). But the reality of marketing the Pacers is that season tickets and avid fans won't put the team in the black.

      N.B. Utah sold nearly 14,000 season tickets this year, so other franchises succeed by focusing on season tickets.




      Link for the 8,500 figure:

      http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/60465
      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


      • #48
        Re: WTHR | Lawmakers propose $45M plan to fund CIB, Pacers

        Originally posted by Putnam View Post
        I'm sure you are correct about jersey and cap sales, but I don't think it proves that the Pacers' reputation is restored.
        I never meant the reputation was restored, that is an ongoing process. I meant that the message is getting out. It isn't completely falling on deaf ears. The reputation is improving, it just isn't yet where we or the team would like to see it.

        I am one of those who believes that support for the team doesn't just equal ticket sales. That's why just fixing the character of the players hasn't turned into huge increases in sales (it is hard to tell if the increase in actual tickets sold is due to the rep or the deals, but I suspect more of the latter than the former).

        Fixing the character of the players has taken the stigma away from being a fan - necessary to lay groundwork for anything else that would be coming, plus necessary for not-insignificant merchandise income.

        Winning translates more into actual tickets sold, particularly in this market, but that's a transformation that takes time and a little bit of good fortune. Meanwhile, you have to get people supporting the team even if it just means they start by going back to watching it on TV or listening on the radio or reading the articles in the paper.
        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


        • #49
          Re: WTHR | Lawmakers propose $45M plan to fund CIB, Pacers

          in order to dispel the reputation we are going to have to win while being good.
          Last edited by Major Cold; 04-03-2009, 10:08 AM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: WTHR | Lawmakers propose $45M plan to fund CIB, Pacers

            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            I never meant the reputation was restored, that is an ongoing process. I meant that the message is getting out. It isn't completely falling on deaf ears. The reputation is improving, it just isn't yet where we or the team would like to see it.
            Okey doke. Thanks for explaining.

            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


            • #51
              Re: WTHR | Lawmakers propose $45M plan to fund CIB, Pacers

              Originally posted by able View Post
              Tiny correction:

              Lucas Oil Colts cap = 63000
              CFH capacity = 18354

              9 x 63000 = 567,000
              45 x 18000 = 810,000

              If you assume capacity at all time for one, do the same for both, Colts certainly have not always sold out

              I will not add that the Colts also get money from for instance the NCAA or that the Pacers pay ticket tax which according to an agreement can not be put on Colts tickets.
              No, it's not a correction. The Colts have sold out every home game since the last game of the 1998 season, 81 games straight.

              When was the last time the Pacers sold out? Hell, they're averaging less than 70% capacity right now.

              If we're gonna talk numbers, let's actually talk numbers not hypotheticals.

              EDIT: The correction that needs to be made is that the Colts, up until this year, were selling 56,000 tickets a game, not 63,000.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: WTHR | Lawmakers propose $45M plan to fund CIB, Pacers

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                No, it's not a correction. The Colts have sold out every home game since the last game of the 1998 season, 81 games straight.

                When was the last time the Pacers sold out? Hell, they're averaging less than 70% capacity right now.

                If we're gonna talk numbers, let's actually talk numbers not hypotheticals.

                EDIT: The correction that needs to be made is that the Colts, up until this year, were selling 56,000 tickets a game, not 63,000.
                His numbers also were based on 9 games for the Colts which would not include preseason games and 45 games for the Pacers which would have to include preaseason games, otherwise the number is 41. (Unless there was a typo and the math is correct. I didn't double check the math).
                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


                • #53
                  Re: WTHR | Lawmakers propose $45M plan to fund CIB, Pacers

                  That's not even getting into the cost of the tickets, which is extremely higher for football.

                  Using RG's hypothetical, Eric pays $21.91 per seat per game, whereas Lloyd pays $102.50 per seat per game.

                  He says paying $123 on tax for the ticket isn't fair for Eric, because Lloyd only pays $24, but Lloyd pays almost 5 times face value.

                  Neither are fair, IMHO.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: WTHR | Lawmakers propose $45M plan to fund CIB, Pacers

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    Neither are fair, IMHO.


                    Who says life is fair? Where is that written?


                    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


                    • #55
                      Re: WTHR | Lawmakers propose $45M plan to fund CIB, Pacers

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      That's not even getting into the cost of the tickets, which is extremely higher for football.

                      Using RG's hypothetical, Eric pays $21.91 per seat per game, whereas Lloyd pays $102.50 per seat per game.

                      He says paying $123 on tax for the ticket isn't fair for Eric, because Lloyd only pays $24, but Lloyd pays almost 5 times face value.

                      Neither are fair, IMHO.
                      Actually, Lloyd's tickets are lower bowl tickets at Lucas Oil where my tickets are balcony at Conseco. I didn't set it up as if the tickets were of the same value, just that one was a Colt season ticket holder and the other is a Pacer season ticket holder.

                      Really, this is all moot because the Marion County ticket tax is a percentage of the total. Looks like that percentage will go from 6 to 10%.
                      ...Still "flying casual"
                      @roaminggnome74

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: WTHR | Lawmakers propose $45M plan to fund CIB, Pacers

                        RTV6.com
                        http://www.theindychannel.com/money/...97/detail.html
                        Panel OK's CIB bailout ; Colts refuse to commit cash
                        By Staff reports/Norman Cox

                        INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indianapolis Colts refused to make any promises to help financially with a $47 million bailout bill for the Capital Improvement Board that a Senate committee approved Thursday by a 10-2 vote.

                        Colts president Bill Polian appeared before the committee hearing the measure, which was unveiled on Wednesday.


                        The bailout bill, crafted by Sen. Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, would raise several taxes, including those on alcohol statewide, restaurant meals and hotel stays in Marion County and tickets to sporting events in Indianapolis.

                        The bill also assumes $5 million a year each in contributions from the Colts and Indiana Pacers.

                        Pacers Chief Operating Officer Rick Fuson was upbeat about the NBA franchise's part of the deal, possibly because the Pacers would be able to get out of their current $15 million commitment to operate Conseco Fieldhouse, 6News' Norman Cox reported.

                        The Colts made no promise to pay anything to operate the stadium they use for $250,000 rent and from which they get most of the revenue. Polian was congenial, but only promised to talk about what the team might consider.

                        "We look forward to working with you and your colleagues in the Legislature in taking a look at this problem and in sharing with you data and information that we will make available to you," he said.

                        Polian told reporters after the hearing that the Colts contributed $100 million to building Lucas Oil Stadium. That total was covered, in part, by the $48 million fee the city paid the team for breaking the lease early at the RCA Dome.

                        The bill would double the wholesale tax on beer, wine and spirits. Only about $8 million from the alcohol tax would go to shore up the operating budget deficit. The rest would be split up by cities and towns around the state.

                        The committee heard from numerous restaurant and bar owners who said the tax would hurt them with no compensating benefit.

                        "I don't have locations in downtown Indianapolism, mine are out in the doughnut and the outskirts. It does not benefit us to have the Indianapolis Colts play," said Outback Steak House franchise owner John Benjamin.

                        To cover the rest of the shortfall, lawmakers will also be asked to raise local hotel and motel taxes from 9 to 10 percent, boost the food and beverage tax a quarter of a percent and increase the tax on stadium and fieldhouse ticket from 6 to 10 percent.
                        Even Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard expressed fear that hiking several of the taxes could drive away the convention business they're designed to protect.
                        "I'm scared to death of taxing too much to kill the convention business," he said.

                        The bill now goes to the full Senate.
                        ...Still "flying casual"
                        @roaminggnome74

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: RTV 6 | Panel Passes CIB Bailout ; Colts Refuse (Post 33)

                          How about they tax the suite holders? We would not be in this mess if it wasn't for everyone wanting more suites for the wine and cheese folks. RCA dome was completely fine, we had trouble selling it out until 2 years ago. Tax them!

                          Also, instead of a DOWNTOWN casino, tear down Busch stadium, build a casino there, close to the track, close to downtown yet far enough away from downtown. Maybe try to revitalize that area.


                          @Pacers24Colts12

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: RTV 6 | Panel Passes CIB Bailout ; Colts Refuse (Post 33)

                            Originally posted by TheDanimal View Post
                            How about they tax the suite holders? We would not be in this mess if it wasn't for everyone wanting more suites for the wine and cheese folks. RCA dome was completely fine, we had trouble selling it out until 2 years ago. Tax them!

                            Also, instead of a DOWNTOWN casino, tear down Busch stadium, build a casino there, close to the track, close to downtown yet far enough away from downtown. Maybe try to revitalize that area.
                            Umm...They do get taxed.
                            ...Still "flying casual"
                            @roaminggnome74

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Star: Legislature looks at raising alcohol taxes to bail out CIB

                              Originally posted by stevo View Post
                              It will interesting if this brings back the debate on selling alcohol on Sundays?
                              Just recently I thought I heard there was a proposal, I could be wrong. To me it just makes sense to allow it. Im not a heavy drinker so this dosnt effect me probably, but in this economy we have Change our way of thinking to survive.
                              http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/busin...ifted_20090402

                              Looks like the issue is back on the front burner thanks to Kroger.
                              I completely agree with their argument. It just makes sense to
                              allow alcohol sales on the most grocer's 2nd busiest day.
                              Why add more tax when we can add 1 day of sales.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: RTV 6 | Panel Passes CIB Bailout ; Colts Refuse (Post 33)

                                Remember the law of motion: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

                                I think that Sunday liquor sales is just such an issue. Restaurants are totally against Sunday sales because they believe it will not only cut into their drink sales, but also cut into their food sales as well. Their thinking is that there are is a decent number of diners that are only ordering meals because they have come into the establishment for a couple of drinks.

                                I personally think that most folks are capable of planning ahead to cover their Sunday alcohol needs. I don't believe that taxes would be appreciably affected one way or the other if alcohol could be purchased on Sundays.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X