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

are sports teams worth the tax money?

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

  • #16
    Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

    Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
    Why do you have to be forced into paying for a Police Force? Or a Street Department? Or a park?
    Because a police force is necessary to enforce laws. Police is a proper function of government, building stadiums is not.

    What is a Street Department?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

      Originally posted by Arcadian
      Cities give tax breaks, build roads and other benefits to other buisness so that they will move to or stay in a city.
      Who ever said that it was right? Why not cut taxes for everyone, evenly and fairly?

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

        I don't know about "right" but it happens because other cities are willing to do that. There are some things a community has to buy collectively--getting buisness to come and stay is one of those things.
        "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

        "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

          The Pacers have been proven time and again that they are committed to Indianapolis. I think we have seen the opposite with our NFL team. Therefore, the giving of tax monies, credits, what have you, is a little bit of a problem to me.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

            Originally posted by Arcadian
            I don't know about "right" but it happens because other cities are willing to do that. There are some things a community has to buy collectively getting buisness to come and stay is one of those things.
            I agree. But I believe in the collective will of the free market atracting people and businesses that will potentially profit by bringing products and services that people want. Not in having government forcing anyone into any particular business venture.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

              Originally posted by Manuel
              Who ever said that it was right? Why not cut taxes for everyone, evenly and fairly?
              First of all, my MBA class got a chance to interview Evan Byah on this very subject shortly after his term as governor ended. I specifically asked him about the funding of the Indiana Fieldhouse, as it was then known, since that was a hot topic at the time.

              His answer was so succinct, so perfect:

              Because there's always Kentucky, and they will always throw tax breaks at Toyota, or the Vancouver Grizzlies, or whomever. As long as they are your neighbor, and you want to compete for high-paying jobs with great companies, you've got to do it. Sounds great in theory, but as long as one state thinks they are behind and they can use this approach to catch up, you've got to do it.

              Now if you are fine with losing all those jobs, businesses, etc., then go right ahead... But politicians are mostly concerned with getting re-elected, and that's a sure-fire way to lose the next election.

              As for whether a stadium benefits everybody - there are plenty of people that go to the circus, or a concert, or a Billy Graham crusade, or the monster trucks or rasslin' but would never attend a professional sporting event. I suppose if you want to sit in your house and be a hermit, and force everyone else to do the same, that you could argue that the stadium doesn't benefit you. But, for example, how many Pacers fans are there in Indianapolis that listen to/ watch the games reguarly even though they believe they cannot afford to or do not wish to pay to attend a game in person. They also benefit from the stadium because it does give them something to do and it only requires a radio or television with an antannae or at its most expensive required level, basic cable.

              A convention center, a stadium, a park - in my mind these all operate the same way. They are infrastructure. Now a sports team, or a concert promoter, that's not the same.
              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

                I don't think in this age, where a company can go anywhere in the world and still sell in all markets, that a community can trust the collective will of a free market. A politician certianly can't get elected taking that approach.

                I believe just as "God helps those who help themselves" that a free market works in a like fashion. I just don't have enough faith in the free market model that you propose to allow a government sit by and do nothing to attract buisness.

                Maybe, you are right that it is more idealogically fair, but I just don't see it as a viable option.
                "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

                  Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                  First of all, my MBA class got a chance to interview Evan Byah on this very subject shortly after his term as governor ended. I specifically asked him about the funding of the Indiana Fieldhouse, as it was then known, since that was a hot topic at the time.

                  His answer was so succinct, so perfect:

                  Because there's always Kentucky, and they will always throw tax breaks at Toyota, or the Vancouver Grizzlies, or whomever. As long as they are your neighbor, and you want to compete for high-paying jobs with great companies, you've got to do it. Sounds great in theory, but as long as one state thinks they are behind and they can use this approach to catch up, you've got to do it.

                  Now if you are fine with losing all those jobs, businesses, etc., then go right ahead... But politicians are mostly concerned with getting re-elected, and that's a sure-fire way to lose the next election.

                  As for whether a stadium benefits everybody - there are plenty of people that go to the circus, or a concert, or a Billy Graham crusade, or the monster trucks or rasslin' but would never attend a professional sporting event. I suppose if you want to sit in your house and be a hermit, and force everyone else to do the same, that you could argue that the stadium doesn't benefit you. But, for example, how many Pacers fans are there in Indianapolis that listen to/ watch the games reguarly even though they believe they cannot afford to or do not wish to pay to attend a game in person. They also benefit from the stadium because it does give them something to do and it only requires a radio or television with an antannae or at its most expensive required level, basic cable.

                  A convention center, a stadium, a park - in my mind these all operate the same way. They are infrastructure. Now a sports team, or a concert promoter, that's not the same.
                  One government intervention leads to another. Yeah, what a savior. The politician raises taxes(for whatever reason, probably mismanagment, waste, and using tax collections to fund things the free market can do), businesses leave, then he tells the businesses that he'll exempt them from taxes and the company either stays or comes back. What a superhero! Coming to the rescue of all of us.

                  Alright lets try a different way. Imagine my daughter likes to go to Disney World, and I have a budget for it. Then along comes a politician and tells me that he wants to build a stadium so I need to give up more tax dollars, there goes my Disney budget. He builds the stadium and when the time comes my daughter and family are asking to go to Disney. How do I explain to them that a politician(that took the Disney money) and Jay wanted to build a stadium for the benefit of all us?

                  What if my family and I don't like the particular sport? Now, we are forced to pay for it whether we like it or not. That is why forcing everyone(with government force) to do what you think is right, is wrong. Because not everyone necessarily agrees with you. People should be FREE to spend their entertainment dollars where they see fit.

                  Lets allow the market to decide. If someone thinks it is profitable to build a stadium they should do it with private funds, not by forcing everyone to pay for it.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

                    Originally posted by Arcadian
                    I don't think in this age, where a company can go anywhere in the world and still sell in all markets, that a community can trust the collective will of a free market. A politician certianly can't get elected taking that approach.

                    I believe just as "God helps those who help themselves" that a free market works in a like fashion. I just don't have enough faith in the free market model that you propose to allow a government sit by and do nothing to attract buisness.

                    Maybe, you are right that it is more idealogically fair, but I just don't see it as a viable option.
                    .

                    Maybe we should socialize everything, so we don't leave it to the will of the free market.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

                      Originally posted by Manuel
                      One government intervention leads to another. Yeah, what a savior. The politician raises taxes(for whatever reason, probably mismanagment, waste, and using tax collections to fund things the free market can do), businesses leave, then he tells the businesses that he'll exempt them from taxes and the company either stays or comes back. What a superhero! Coming to the rescue of all of us.

                      Alright lets try a different way. Imagine my daughter likes to go to Disney World, and I have a budget for it. Then along comes a politician and tells me that he wants to build a stadium so I need to give up more tax dollars, there goes my Disney budget. He builds the stadium and when the time comes my daughter and family are asking to go to Disney. How do I explain to them that a politician(that took the Disney money) and Jay wanted to build a stadium for the benefit of all us?

                      What if my family and I don't like the particular sport? Now, we are forced to pay for it whether we like it or not. That is why forcing everyone(with government force) to do what you think is right, is wrong. Because not everyone necessarily agrees with you. People should be FREE to spend their entertainment dollars where they see fit.

                      Lets allow the market to decide. If someone thinks it is profitable to build a stadium they should do it with private funds, not by forcing everyone to pay for it.
                      Well, if you like the sport, then I think you've got to blame it on the United hub that, to my knowledge, is no longer even in use. Or the Toyota plant. Or whatever. I agree with you in theory, but I don't value the theory over the practical application here. Governments have to compete to win/ keep businesses, and this is no different.

                      Besides, this is still a democracy, it takes some type of majority for the government to force you to do this. So if enough people agreed with you, you *could* turn this place into Los Angeles, with lots of smog and no football. Have smog or 'no football' hurt LA's reputation?
                      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                      And life itself, rushing over me
                      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

                        Where did I say that? Does believing that not everything should left up to a free market without any governmental interference mean that I think everything should be socialized?

                        I am not even sure if this is a free market/socialist issue. It is a question of whether or not a community should act as a whole to make itself attractive to buisness-an independent party. That is not socialism.
                        "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                        "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

                          Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                          Besides, this is still a democracy, it takes some type of majority for the government to force you to do this. So if enough people agreed with you, you *could* turn this place into Los Angeles, with lots of smog and no football. Have smog or 'no football' hurt LA's reputation?
                          Two quick points in defence of LA:

                          1)Don't knock smog until you have tried it. Also Indy doesn't have the population or geographic features to compete with us in the smog department.

                          2)If Indy doesn't build a stadium LA will have both football and smog.
                          "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                          "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

                            Hey, its going to get up to 26 degrees here today. So I've started the annual running discussion with Jay's_Wife@Section204. When we were leaving Indiana, I wanted to move to southern California, she wanted to stay closer to family. I can live with smog as long as its warm.
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

                              Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                              Well, if you like the sport, then I think you've got to blame it on the United hub that, to my knowledge, is no longer even in use. Or the Toyota plant. Or whatever. I agree with you in theory, but I don't value the theory over the practical application here. Governments have to compete to win/ keep businesses, and this is no different.

                              Besides, this is still a democracy, it takes some type of majority for the government to force you to do this. So if enough people agreed with you, you *could* turn this place into Los Angeles, with lots of smog and no football. Have smog or 'no football' hurt LA's reputation?
                              Should the majority have the right to force me to do things?

                              I understand that you may think this discussion does not center on the "practical", but I believe it does.

                              The government does and should have limits. The majority has no overiding right over my individual rights.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: are sports teams worth the tax money?

                                Originally posted by Arcadian
                                Where did I say that? Does believing that not everything should left up to a free market without any governmental interference mean that I think everything should be socialized?
                                No, but that is the conclusion. If somethings should be socialized because the free market is not apt to do it, then souldn't everything? You can't trust the free market, right?

                                If not, then tell me why exactly can't private money be raised to pay for a stadium?

                                Originally posted by Arcadian
                                I am not even sure if this is a free market/socialist issue. It is a question of whether or not a community should act as a whole to make itself attractive to buisness-an independent party. That is not socialism.
                                Yes it is. It is socializing sport stadiums.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X