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

Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

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

  • #31
    Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

    Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
    It really is as simple as this. The NBA supplies 15 X 82 = 1230 games per regular season. The NFL suppiles 16 X 16 = 256 games per regular season. The sense of urgency to attend and or watch NFL games is magnified as a result of scarcity as much as anything else. Also, the NFL has the vast majority of its games during times and on days that are more accessible to more people on a consistent basis than any other sport. These factors make people more likely to spend time and money on that sport compared to the others, which makes it healthier overall.

    So, cut the season back to fewer games, cut the number of teams, and increase the quality and sense of consumer urgency regarding those games and players. The remaining league would be healthier and more robust as a result and everyone involved would be happy (remaining owners, remaining players, and at least those fans in the remaining markets, and casual fans everywhere).

    Do the Pacers exist in this new league? Maybe, maybe not.
    This is why most people think the NBA (and MLB) play too many games. If there are games that even good teams expect to lose because of how many games you play then you play too many games.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

      Originally posted by travmil View Post
      I didn't say teams shouldn't make more money. I said 5 or 6 teams shouldn't make more money than the rest of the teams combined. There's a difference, but then again, you know that and you're just trying to put words in my mouth.
      but no way the owners of the big market teams go for such radical revenue sharing when they paid several hundred mil. more for their big-market teams then did the small market operators.

      that is why, i think, the [allegedly] money-losing owners are trying to recoup their [alleged] losses from the backs of the players, and not the better-performing owners via revenue sharing.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

        Originally posted by dal9 View Post
        but no way the owners of the big market teams go for such radical revenue sharing when they paid several hundred mil. more for their big-market teams then did the small market operators.

        that is why, i think, the [allegedly] money-losing owners are trying to recoup their [alleged] losses from the backs of the players, and not the better-performing owners via revenue sharing.
        I already admitted as much in my first post in this topic.


        Originally posted by travmil View Post
        I think the local TV deal revenue sharing needs to happen but never will.
        I'm explaining my opinion of what should happen or needs to happen, not what WILL happen.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

          Originally posted by travmil View Post
          I didn't say teams shouldn't make more money. I said 5 or 6 teams shouldn't make more money than the rest of the teams combined. There's a difference, but then again, you know that and you're just trying to put words in my mouth.
          How does adding in the last few words change my point? It doesn't.

          If they shouldn't be allowed to make more money than the rest of the league combined, then the NBA needs to step in and set ticket prices and the rest, like I said.

          I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to show you that you can't cap profits in order to make things "fair."

          Those franchises reap the rewards of being in a bigger market. They didn't create that market, they're only a part of it.

          Indy can't get FA because of our crappy weather and location. Should Stern try to find a way to change those things as well? No.

          You work with the tools you have, and the teams in LA, Boston, Chicago, New York etc get to work with more tools.

          The solution is to try and find a way to help teams, not try to hurt others.

          Thank you for telling me what my intentions were though. That really helped further civil discussion.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

            Oh yeah I forgot nobody is allowed to have an opinion around you...silly me.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

              You complained about me putting words in your mouth, and then you come back with that response? Classic.

              You're allowed to have an opinion, you're not going to tell me what my intentions are though. I think I know myself better than you know me. Or do you have a different opinion on that issue as well?
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

                I've already said we obviously don't share the same opinion. Why can't you just leave it at that?

                I think that owning an NBA team is a partnership as much as it is a private enterprise and that every NBA owner owes as much to his partners as he does to himself and they should share their wealth with their partners. You seem to lean more towards the private enterprise way of thinking in that the team should keep all of what they earn. It's as simple as that really, and both are completely acceptable (or maybe equally stupid) ways to run things.

                I can agree on that at least.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

                  Because you're telling me I put words in your mouth, when I didn't. If you're going to take the conversation to a more personal level, then I'm going to respond. There's no reason for it, which is why I called it out rather than just ignoring it.

                  I understand I can drop it, but at the same time so can you, and yet here we are.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

                    But you DID put words in my mouth. You said I said teams shouldn't make more money than other teams when I did not. There's a difference between saying that and what I actually did say. You can look up at your own post. I'm not gonna waste my time quoting it. This is pointless...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

                      I omitted some words and the point remained the same. You can't cap profits. It takes away all incentive to make profits.

                      It stays the exact same, even if the phrase "than the rest of the teams combined" is added or not.

                      It's semantics, not a different point.

                      Geesh, I'm sorry. I'll now start typing laugh out loud instead of lol, don't want to take any shortcuts.

                      EDIT:
                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      If teams shouldn't be allowed to make more money than the other teams combined, then where is the proposal to set ticket prices league wide?

                      Yeah right.

                      EDIT: If that's your stance, then the NBA should control everything and then hand out the pieces to each team. Control TV deals, ticket prices, concessions, everything.

                      Not gonna happen.
                      There the post is fixed to include those important words. The point remains the same.
                      Last edited by Since86; 07-13-2011, 01:52 PM.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

                        OK, I also should clarify. I think every team should MAKE whatever they can make, I just think they should share it with their partners. The way I said it made it seem like I wanted each team to make only a certain amount and for that amount to be equal for every team when that really isn't what I meant.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

                          So shouldn't the league control all costs and expenses then?

                          I view the league like I view the United States. We all fall under the title of America, but each state is independently ran. If California goes bankrupt, then why should I pay to bail them out? That's not my problem. California doesn't provide me with anything. They are the competition.

                          If the Indianapolis Pacers can't support themselves, then they need to fold. If Memphis can't support themselves, then they need to fold.

                          Making the Lakers responsible for the Pacers profit makes the league weaker. What if the Lakers go bankrupt, like the Dodgers? Then what? Everything collapses, because it's a house built on sand.

                          The Lakers, the Knicks, any team that is currently making boat loads of money can just as easily crumble. If they crumble, and the rest of the league is dependent on their money to stay alive, it will cause the entire league to crumble.

                          Instead, you make a league that is independently financially stable, so that way if the Lakers go down the tubes, Indianapolis doesn't have to worry about losing their team.

                          EDIT: I should throw this in there. If the numbers were reversed, and 22 teams made money, and only 8 teams lost money, then I'd think revenue sharing would be a more ideal solution.

                          But you can't have 75% of a league dependent on the other 25%. That's bad business and the most basic, fundamental level.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

                            I think only ten teams tops would make it in your scenario and who besides ESPN programming executives wants to watch that?

                            So let's say that every team is allowed to keep every dollar of revenue they make and the gap is very wide between the top and bottom just like today. For the Pacers to survive in THAT version of the NBA, a hard cap is a must. Then it won't matter of the Lakers and Knicks are making $160 million plus every year because they can only spend $60 million of it on player salary anyway. No exceptions, no ways to circumvent the cap. Whatever the number is, that's it. That's fair no matter what each team is making and I could live with that too.
                            Last edited by travmil; 07-14-2011, 07:28 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

                              I know a hard cap is a must, which is why I've been saying that they need a hard cap.

                              When you have revenue sharing and teams are guaranteed profit, you end up like the MLB system and get teams like Pittsburgh and the Florida Marlins. They don't spend money, they draft/trade/sign for young players on cheap contracts to keep their payrolls down. They also play in front of empty stadiums. Yet they still make money.

                              Now, the Marlins are pretty good at scouting, so they end up getting a good team here and there, but when it comes time to re-sign them, they trade them or let them walk. Look at D-Willis, Juan Pierre, etc.

                              Now Pittsburgh is actually good this year, but they're doing it on the backs of cheap/young players like McCutchen. And I will bet you right now that he's not playing for them within two years, because they will let him walk or trade him away for prospects. That's their MO.

                              Keep expenses down and simply collect that money from Boston/New York etc.

                              It's a damn shame really.

                              Here's a link showing attendance per year. Notice the same teams are always on bottom
                              http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

                              Here's a link of payrolls per year. Notice the same teams are always on bottom.
                              http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm

                              The Yankee's can afford to pay the luxury tax, pay out top dollar on players, and still revenue share because they have the resources to make money. I mean they have seats that cost $2,000 per game.

                              You have to be able to restrict, not what they make, but how much they can spend.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Tbird topic: Ideas to help create a new Collective Bargaining Agreement

                                Looking on SI.com's front page, they have a story about MLB and the second half of the season. Pittsburgh hasn't had a winning season since 1992. 18 full seasons under .500% WOW!
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X