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

Pacers schedule released. 10 national tv games

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

  • Re: Pacers schedule released. 10 national tv games

    Originally posted by cdash View Post
    Isn't that what they were doing in the lockout? Trying to curb the competitive advantage of big market teams? Harsher luxury tax penalties and what not?

    I think they went about it backwards. Without getting too political, they went about fixing the problem using redistribution and I'm not a fan of it. Franchises need to be able to support themselves, instead of relying on charity from other franchices.

    It's like "give the man a fish, he eats for a day. teach a man to fish, he eats for a life time." The NBA is just handing out fishes.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers schedule released. 10 national tv games

      They were arguing about the pie. It does not matter how big or small the pie is, both sides will always argue about their slice.

      The argument that if the pie was big enough, everybody would be in harmony, is very naive.

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers schedule released. 10 national tv games

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        I think they went about it backwards. Without getting too political, they went about fixing the problem using redistribution and I'm not a fan of it. Franchises need to be able to support themselves, instead of relying on charity from other franchices.

        It's like "give the man a fish, he eats for a day. teach a man to fish, he eats for a life time." The NBA is just handing out fishes.
        We've seen though the story of Oklahoma City. They've been featured a bunch on national TV since they got there, they have stars, and yet they can barely financially support themselves. At a certain point, the difference between local TV revenue opportunities just becomes too large.

        And bringing the NFL back into the discussion, this is why it's hard to compare the two. The NFL shares such a large percentage of their revenues. All their television revenue, licensing deals, part of their ticket revenue, etc. It's a completely different model than the NBA which relies so much more on what each local team can get.

        Do we know how much influence the NBA has on who gets on national TV? Other than setting a maximum number of games (25) and minimum (0) times a team can be on national TV, I'm guessing the networks (especially ABC/TNT) get a large amount of choice on what games they want to see in those time slot.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers schedule released. 10 national tv games

          Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
          We've seen though the story of Oklahoma City. They've been featured a bunch on national TV since they got there, they have stars, and yet they can barely financially support themselves. At a certain point, the difference between local TV revenue opportunities just becomes too large.
          I understand all that. I'm not saying their marketing scheme is the sole reason for financial problems, nor am I saying changing the scheme will be the magical bullet that fixes the problem. I'm merely saying it plays a part. I'm not saying that I hate revenue sharing. I think it can be part of the solution, but I don't think it's the solution. Nor do I think that every team ought to have X amount of national games.

          I understand that a decision needs to be made on which teams get national games and which teams don't. I'm just saying the deciding factor on whether or not a team should get national games should be dependent on the quality of product they're going to put on the screen, not how big of a city they're from.

          If large market teams are good, then that's another story. I have no qualms about the Heat getting as many games as they do. My beef is specifically with the Lakers getting that many.
          Last edited by Since86; 08-07-2013, 01:13 PM.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers schedule released. 10 national tv games

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Specifically, I'm talking about their insistance to putting bad basketball from large markets in the spotlight as opposed to better basketball from smaller markets.

            I just don't think it's a radical concept to put attention on your better teams.

            There were a couple of season recently where the Knicks were not on national TV at all. The nets and Clippers have never until right now been TV darlings. The lakers have had so much success over the years and even very recently that they have a nationwide following and they still have one of the top 3 or 4 most popular players in the NBA.

            Look at the Celtics, they have 3 national games this year, so that proves that they will take off big market teams with a lot of history off the schedule. if Kobe retires and the lakers have a bad season they will be dropped as quickly as the Celtics were this season.

            The fact is and I am sure the research shows that the Lakers are still a big draw. if Kobe can never play again and if the lakers next summer don't sign any really popular players their TV appearances will drop.

            Market size itself is not why they put teams on. Stars is the biggest reason why they put teams on

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers schedule released. 10 national tv games

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              I understand the concept and am well versed in the relationship between marketing and revenue. I still think revenue would have been an issue; along with player salaries, max contracts, contract lengths, and all the other reported issues. Here's the flaw in that concept: If the owners can squeeze out more money, even from a highly profitable business, they are going to do what it takes to get it done. Saying the lockout would not have happened had the marketing departments gone gangbusters and sold all the tickets is not an argument I can buy into.
              I don't think anyone is saying there wouldn't have been an issue at all.

              Personally, I think IF the revenue pie itself were larger, then there is a huge DISincentive for owners to resort to a lockout over how it is divided - after all, if you aren't making money by not playing (as opposed to not losing money), those lost games get to be pretty important.

              There would still be fighting over the split and plenty of posturing and poor-mouthing, but if the product revenue hadn't gone the way it did since 2007 there would really have been no reason to lockout the players to force major concessions.
              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


              • Re: Pacers schedule released. 10 national tv games

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                Market size itself is not why they put teams on. Stars is the biggest reason why they put teams on
                That's because the potential market for a star is larger than the potential market for a team. However, the market for a star is VERY transient - even barring injury - so wouldn't it be smart to at least put SOME eggs into the basket of marketing something that is more stable (the game as a whole and the concept that there's more to it than just today's superstar)?
                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


                • Re: Pacers schedule released. 10 national tv games

                  Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                  Other than setting a maximum number of games (25) and minimum (0) times a team can be on national TV, I'm guessing the networks (especially ABC/TNT) get a large amount of choice on what games they want to see in those time slot.
                  Decrease that maximum by 2 and increase the minimum by 1 and you add a lot of teams to the mix. Heck, make the maximum/minimum based on the previous year's season record - that gives teams an incentive to play well AND means the networks aren't forced to show games for teams expected to be crappy (yeah, circumstances will change, but it's better than just going by same-old-same-old and showing Lakers games).
                  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


                  • Re: Pacers schedule released. 10 national tv games

                    I could get behind watching the Lakers go 1 and 24 in nationally televised games......
                    "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                    "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers schedule released. 10 national tv games

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      I think they went about it backwards. Without getting too political, they went about fixing the problem using redistribution and I'm not a fan of it. Franchises need to be able to support themselves, instead of relying on charity from other franchices.

                      It's like "give the man a fish, he eats for a day. teach a man to fish, he eats for a life time." The NBA is just handing out fishes.
                      If each team was independent of each other your assessment would be true, but the facts are they are not. Every team relies on all of the other teams in order to make money. If the league was only the Pacers you aren't going to make much money as there would be no one to play. The NBA is an ecosystem that needs and relies on every team in order to turn out maximum profit. If it was just the 8 largest markets your margins might be greater, but overall you would have less profit as there would be fewer games to play. So you add smaller markets, although they might walker a tight rope on profit overall they allow for the bigger markets to make an even larger profit as those large markets have more games to play. It is a balancing act, and everyone needs everyone. That is why revenue sharing is important.

                      Originally posted by cdash View Post
                      As far as the NBA putting them on national TV, I just don't see where that would really help all that much. The NBA is interested in profits (directly related to revenue, FYI), and putting the biggest market teams on TV is just smart business sense. They will get more revenue from advertising because more people are going to be watching. Stars and big markets bring in the big bucks. The NBA realizes this, and schedules their national television games accordingly.
                      Maybe, that is assuming that the short term profits of focusing on the large markets is greater than the long term profits of focusing on the health of the whole league. Take Green Bay for example. Green Bay is as small market as it gets, yet have one of the most popular teams in the NFL, and I am sure they also have some of the largest profits. That fan base and those profits were built up over a long period of time, and in the long run has helped to keep the NFL financially stable because Green Bay's profits are not dictated on having Peyton Manning or Tom Brady as their QB.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers schedule released. 10 national tv games

                        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                        I
                        Maybe, that is assuming that the short term profits of focusing on the large markets is greater than the long term profits of focusing on the health of the whole league. Take Green Bay for example. Green Bay is as small market as it gets, yet have one of the most popular teams in the NFL, and I am sure they also have some of the largest profits. That fan base and those profits were built up over a long period of time, and in the long run has helped to keep the NFL financially stable because Green Bay's profits are not dictated on having Peyton Manning or Tom Brady as their QB.
                        I really wish we would stop bringing up NFL teams in this discussion. It is an entirely different animal.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers schedule released. 10 national tv games

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          If each team was independent of each other your assessment would be true, but the facts are they are not. Every team relies on all of the other teams in order to make money. If the league was only the Pacers you aren't going to make much money as there would be no one to play. The NBA is an ecosystem that needs and relies on every team in order to turn out maximum profit. If it was just the 8 largest markets your margins might be greater, but overall you would have less profit as there would be fewer games to play. So you add smaller markets, although they might walker a tight rope on profit overall they allow for the bigger markets to make an even larger profit as those large markets have more games to play. It is a balancing act, and everyone needs everyone. That is why revenue sharing is important.
                          You're not saying anything I don't already know. I'm not saying revenue sharing, in principle is bad, but rather I don't like how the NBA "fixed" their financial problems solely by revenue sharing.

                          Depending on revenue sharing from 1/4th of the league to support the other 3/4ths, is a dangerous game. If one or two teams in that 1/4th hit financial burdens, for whatever reason, that puts the entire league at risk. If each team can support themselves, and one or two teams in that 1/4th hit financial burdens, the impact is minimized.

                          I just think that if you have a revenue problem, finding ways to increase revenue is a better option over finding ways to share revenue.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers schedule released. 10 national tv games

                            Originally posted by cdash View Post
                            I really wish we would stop bringing up NFL teams in this discussion. It is an entirely different animal.
                            How is it a different animal? When it comes to marketing you can either take a long term approach or a short term approach. The long term approach focuses on brand loyalty, brand recognition, and quality. Short term focuses on being flashy, trendy, and bells and whistles. One thing that has proven to be true is that the long term approach is always better if you want your product to be around a long time. If you are focused on short term you are only as profitable as your latest hyped product, but if you focus on the long term and quality your profits will not be as dependent your last product. Loyalty begins to play a bigger role in your profits. This isn't a sport specific strategy, this strategy is product neutral. The exact details may be different, but that is tactics not strategy.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers schedule released. 10 national tv games

                              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                              How is it a different animal? When it comes to marketing you can either take a long term approach or a short term approach. The long term approach focuses on brand loyalty, brand recognition, and quality. Short term focuses on being flashy, trendy, and bells and whistles. One thing that has proven to be true is that the long term approach is always better if you want your product to be around a long time. If you are focused on short term you are only as profitable as your latest hyped product, but if you focus on the long term and quality your profits will not be as dependent your last product. Loyalty begins to play a bigger role in your profits. This isn't a sport specific strategy, this strategy is product neutral. The exact details may be different, but that is tactics not strategy.
                              Pray tell then, what would be your grand marketing scheme for the NBA? Long term. What are these people with beaucoup degrees and highly competitive NBA marketing jobs doing wrong?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers schedule released. 10 national tv games

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                You're not saying anything I don't already know. I'm not saying revenue sharing, in principle is bad, but rather I don't like how the NBA "fixed" their financial problems solely by revenue sharing.

                                Depending on revenue sharing from 1/4th of the league to support the other 3/4ths, is a dangerous game. If one or two teams in that 1/4th hit financial burdens, for whatever reason, that puts the entire league at risk. If each team can support themselves, and one or two teams in that 1/4th hit financial burdens, the impact is minimized.

                                I just think that if you have a revenue problem, finding ways to increase revenue is a better option over finding ways to share revenue.
                                You are basically talking about a very low hard cap. Sometimes you have to compromise and find a solution that might not be ideal, but gets the job done. While minimizing the risk. That is what revenue sharing does. It is a compromise that tries to allow all teams to be able to compete financially, hypothetically allowing them to field better teams and become more financially stable themselves.

                                Also your worst case scenario here is highly unrealistic. If LA, NY, Boston, Chicago, or whoever is in a financial crisis the problem is going to be league wide and not isolated to a specific team.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X