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

either hornets or kings relocating to seattle?

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

  • #46
    Re: either hornets or kings relocating to seattle?

    Well, I seriously doubt contraction is going to be a matter of telling an owner his franchise is revoked without some sort of compensation.
    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


    • #47
      Re: either hornets or kings relocating to seattle?

      If a team moved to Kansas City would they be BBQ or The Ribs?

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: either hornets or kings relocating to seattle?

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        Well, I seriously doubt contraction is going to be a matter of telling an owner his franchise is revoked without some sort of compensation.
        That's an interesting point. In the case of a contraction, how much would the owners of the terminated franchise receive if anything? Never thought about that before.

        If a franchise is contracted, it's because the owners don't want to keep it on business any more or because even though they want to stay in business the other teams want to buy them out. The first case will happen when they're (a) not able to generate cash-flows and (1)can't find borrowers (2)don't want to loan/invest more of their own money in the business (3) can't find a buyer, (b) the business is profitable, they want to sell and can't find a buyer (which seems improbable). The main benefit for the owners would be to limit future losses.

        What would the other 29 owners have to gain/loss from a contraction? Let's assume that there's no established rule for this in the NBA Constitution and joint-venture by-laws.

        They'd get the money the terminated team gets from the NBA shared revenue - national broadcasting rights + merchandising + league wide sponsorships + others. For a franchise like New Orleans that would be around $40 millions per year. That would be a little more than $1 million for each team - theoretically in perpetuity.

        How much would they lose? Most of the losses of a contraction would come in the form of intangibles, namely bad publicity and increased uncertainty. It'd lower the value of many other franchises around the league. Plus, it'd be one less market with a direct presence in the future.

        Would those losses be significantly less significant if they decided to buy the franchise and then terminate it? I don't see why. Would the gains be larger? Again, hard to see why.

        So, if the league decides they need to contract a team against the owners will, obviously they'd need to pay market value for it. But why would they contract a franchise against the owners will? The only reason for that is if they believe that 1/30 of the NBA shared revenue in the future is worth more than the (1) market value of the franchise in the present plus (2) the loses in public image caused by a contraction. But if that's the case, we would have a gigantic pricing problem. Why deal with the loses caused by the contraction? Why can't other buyers identify the high value of the future NBA shared revenue? Doesn't make much sense.

        If a franchise is terminated it will be because the owners decided that cutting their loses immediately is their best option - they won't be expecting any kind of compensation.

        Am I missing something here?
        Last edited by cordobes; 12-09-2010, 03:28 PM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: either hornets or kings relocating to seattle?

          Originally posted by Phree Refill View Post
          I think before anyone can form an accurate opinion about the likelihood of a Seattle NBA franchise ever coming to fruition in the future they should go to this site:
          http://www.sonicsgate.org/

          I was investigating a little bit about the sonics relocation and came across that site. If you have 2 hours to kill I definitely recommend watching the movie. It was easily one of the most interesting things I've watched in quite a while. It was nice to hear the whole story about the relocation of the Seattle franchise. After watching it, it made me feel extremely lucky to have the pacers and I can't imagine indy without them. I am extremely sympathetic for the NBA fans in Seattle. And the situation that was abound this past summer involving the pacers and the city had eerily similar undertones as the Seattle situation.

          Having watched the " sonicsgate" movie, I was unaware OKC owner Clay Bennett and Stern were such good friends. It leads me to believe Stern would be very reluctant to have any team relocate to Seattle within the next 3 years simply because if one does it would cost his buddy Bennett $30 million due to the severance deal struck with Seattle when the team moved. The deal agreed upon was that if Seattle gained another NBA team within 5 years of the sonics move, Bennett owes the city of Seattle $30 million. Judging by the friendship Stern and Bennett has, I'd be willing to bet Stern will discourage any franchise relocation to Seattle until after the 5 years has expired.
          I did watch Sonicsgate and there were a few things that didn't seem to line up "factually" with some other sources. I wonder if anyone was interested in "fact checking" all the info in SonicsGate? The people involved did have an axe to grind possibly making it easier to "not let facts get in the way of a good story."

          I believe Seattle will have another NBA team soon after plans for an arena are put on the table. Like before, it's a matter of who's gonna pay for it. As for that, paying for your own arena seems to have worked out well for the late Larry H. Miller in Utah and Bob Kraft (N.E. Patriots) outside of Boston.
          ...Still "flying casual"
          @roaminggnome74

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: either hornets or kings relocating to seattle?

            Originally posted by cordobes View Post
            So, if the league decides they need to contract a team against the owners will, obviously they'd need to pay market value for it. But why would they contract a franchise against the owners will? They'd only benefit $1 million and change and that's before factoring the loses. So, why would they spend in excess of $10 million each? Makes no sense in my vies.

            If a franchise is terminated it will be because the owners decided that cutting their loses immediately is their best option - they won't be expecting any kind of compensation.

            Am I missing something here?
            Those are the extremes. However, I'd think if there were franchises where the owners were willing to shut down and absorb the losses they would do so without the league having to call it contraction.

            I think if the owners as a whole decide that fewer teams are better for the league, there will be a negotiation process where owners willing to accept compensation to close down will be the ones who do so. In other words, it would not be "against their will", nor do I think it would be something where an owner immediately realizes market value, but there will be something worked out and in between.

            I would expect that what would happen is a combination of cash and minority ownership in the continuing (and thus expected to be stronger) franchises.

            Though someone might try to negotiate a St. Louis deal...
            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


            • #51
              Re: either hornets or kings relocating to seattle?

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              Those are the extremes. However, I'd think if there were franchises where the owners were willing to shut down and absorb the losses they would do so without the league having to call it contraction.

              I think if the owners as a whole decide that fewer teams are better for the league,
              there will be a negotiation process where owners willing to accept compensation to close down will be the ones who do so. In other words, it would not be "against their will", nor do I think it would be something where an owner immediately realizes market value, but there will be something worked out and in between.

              I would expect that what would happen is a combination of cash and minority ownership in the continuing (and thus expected to be stronger) franchises.

              Though someone might try to negotiate a St. Louis deal...
              Why would fewer teams be better for the league? Because of the dispersal draft? More concentration of talent? Would it really make a noticeable impact?

              Why would continuing franchises be stronger? I don't see how they'd be much stronger. The Hornets get a little bit more than $30 million per year from the broadcasting deal - continuing franchises would pocket that money. But when negotiating a future contract, they wouldn't have the same type of ratings in Lousiana to show. A very small hit, but it's not like $30 million/29 is a very large amount. The Hornets also get 1/30 of a total of $120 million or so in other forms of revenue generated by the league collectively. Without the Hornets that amount would probably decline but meaninglessly - as the Hornets probably don't generate too much revenue in jersey sales and such. Still, one would expect the NBA product to be even less popular in Louisiana.

              I understand your reasoning. But the NBA isn't, say, a manufacturer that can strengthen the overall operation by shutting down some highly inefficient factories. The NBA is merely a joint-venture. There's no such thing as a tangible NBA's collective wealth. The folding of "weak franchises" doesn't necessarily make "healthy franchises" much stronger. Those who benefit from the folding of "weak franchises" are, to an extremely high degree, the owners of those franchises. The owners of the healthy ones, not so much. They have some little tangible gains but it's a very risky operation in terms of potential image losses.

              The Silna's deal is a great example of that. In retrospect, it made no sense whatsoever to limit the merger to 4 teams. Three years after the St. Louis Spirits folding, the Dallas Mavericks joined the league.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: either hornets or kings relocating to seattle?

                I'm not saying that any of this makes sense to do, I'm just saying that if it were to happen this would be how it would happen.

                I'm not in favor of contraction, just sayin' how it would likely have to go down in order to occur.
                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


                • #53
                  Re: either hornets or kings relocating to seattle?

                  I see your point, but I disagree.

                  I think that if a contraction happens, the owners of the continuing franchises won't spend a cent on it. Well, maybe a few millions to assure an orderly liquidation if it's absolutely necessary. More than that? Only if the owner of the terminated franchise has some dirty on them. Not enough incentive.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: either hornets or kings relocating to seattle?

                    Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                    I see your point, but I disagree.

                    I think that if a contraction happens, the owners of the continuing franchises won't spend a cent on it. Well, maybe a few millions to assure an orderly liquidation if it's absolutely necessary. More than that? Only if the owner of the terminated franchise has some dirty on them. Not enough incentive.
                    Are you using contraction in the term of "some franchise folds" or in the term "the league decides contraction is going to happen"? Because in the first case, I agree with you, there's no need for continuing owners to do a thing. In the second instance, though, considering the existing owners have to vote to shrink the number of franchises, all but the guaranteed "around forever" teams are going to want to make sure a precedent isn't set that yanks everything away.
                    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


                    • #55
                      Re: either hornets or kings relocating to seattle?

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      Are you using contraction in the term of "some franchise folds" or in the term "the league decides contraction is going to happen"? Because in the first case, I agree with you, there's no need for continuing owners to do a thing. In the second instance, though, considering the existing owners have to vote to shrink the number of franchises, all but the guaranteed "around forever" teams are going to want to make sure a precedent isn't set that yanks everything away.
                      I don't think the second instance is a possibility. The league can't vote a contraction. If they decide to shrink the number of teams, they'd need to acquire the franchises they want to fold paying the market price - paying whatever the owners ask - and then terminate them. There's no other option. They can't simply vote teams out of the joint-venture.

                      What's exactly the precedent you fear it could be set?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: either hornets or kings relocating to seattle?

                        Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                        I don't think the second instance is a possibility. The league can't vote a contraction. If they decide to shrink the number of teams, they'd need to acquire the franchises they want to fold paying the market price - paying whatever the owners ask - and then terminate them. There's no other option. They can't simply vote teams out of the joint-venture.

                        What's exactly the precedent you fear it could be set?
                        I'll admit I'm not familiar enough with how the league is set up legally to know at this level what they can or cannot do. The precedent that the Owners will want to guard against is anything that reduces the value of a single franchise simply due to the will of other franchise owners. If safeguards are in place that are guaranteed to prevent that, then there is nothing to worry about and the only way contraction could happen would be for franchises to fold of their own accord or for the league to buy them out and fold them.

                        However, in the war between legal document and creative lawyers, the lawyers usually win...
                        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


                        • #57
                          Re: either hornets or kings relocating to seattle?

                          the nhl needs to fold teams

                          where their lowest attendance average is like 9,000 people per game

                          the nba will leave it at 30
                          In 49 states it's just basketball, but this is Indiana!

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X