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

ESPN: Ten nuggets in the new CBA (interesting read)

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    ESPN: Ten nuggets in the new CBA (interesting read)

    I didn't see this posted yet..


    ESPN.com: NBA
    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print...672&type=story

    Monday, August 1, 2005
    Ten nuggets in the new CBA

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By Marc Stein
    ESPN.com

    Folks around the league have spent the weekend reviewing the new labor deal and its 450-plus pages of complicated math and lawyerly language.

    As we brace for the lifting of the moratorium on signings and trades Tuesday, what follows here is the first bundle of fine-print CBA details to blip onto the Stein Line radar.

    There will be more nuggets to share once the complete labor document starts to circulate, but here are 10 to pique the interest of amateur capologists everywhere:

    1. Call this one the Gary Payton Rule: Players who are traded and then waived by their new team cannot sign back with the team that traded them for 30 days (20 days in the offseason). Payton, you'll recall, was dealt from Boston to Atlanta in the Antoine Walker trade-deadline swap in February, only to rejoin the Celtics three days later. Had this rule been in place last season, Payton still would have been eligible for the playoffs after Atlanta released him March 1, but he would have been forced to wait until March 31 to re-sign with Boston.

    2. A trick that attracted even more attention last season -- after Alonzo Mourning and Jim Jackson refused to report to Toronto and New Orleans to eventually force their way to title contenders -- will be personally addressed by the commissioner from now on. The new rules empower David Stern to fine or suspend such players, and word is he plans to swing the hammer hard in hopes of dissuading future Zos from holding out after trades. Mourning was able to sign with Miami after the Raptors, who had acquired the veteran center from New Jersey in the Vince Carter trade, bought him out for an estimated $11 million. Had Stern possessed this option last season, Zo likely would have been forced to miss a handful of games through suspension upon joining the Heat.

    3. Maximum salaries for next season are $12 million for players with zero-to-six years of service time (such as Michael Redd and Joe Johnson), $14.4 million for players with seven-to-nine years of service time (Ray Allen) and $16.8 million for players with 10 or more years of service time. So Redd's six-year deal to stay put in Milwaukee, based on 10.5 percent annual raises, is worth $90.9 million. Johnson's forthcoming contract in a Phoenix Suns' sign-and-trade with the Atlanta Hawks, based on 8 percent raises because the Hawks set the terms, is worth $69.6 million. And Allen's five-year deal to stay in Seattle, based on 10.5 percent raises, is worth $87.1 million.


    4. Despite suggestions to the contrary, the league office will continue to institute a moratorium on signings and trades at the start of every July throughout the next six seasons of labor peace. By year five, though, the moratorium is expected to last no longer than a week.

    5. Players with two years or less of big-league service can be sent down to the NBA Development League a maximum of three times per season.

    6. Rookie contracts indeed provide only a two-year guarantee for first-round picks, with teams able to invoke two subsequent one-year options if they choose. Rookies, though, do not become unrestricted free agents after four seasons as some expected. If a rookie plays out the original two-year deal and the two option seasons, he would still be a restricted free agent after the fourth year.

    7. Offer sheets to restricted free agents like Chicago's Eddy Curry, which formerly had to be at least three seasons long, can now be as short as two years.

    8. The so-called Million Dollar Exception is now known as the Bi-Annual Exception, because teams above the cap can use it only every other season. It's now worth $1.672 million for the 2005-06 season and will go up slightly every year. Capped-out teams can still use the mid-level exception (worth an even $5 million in '05-06) every season.

    9. NBA teams can now pay $500,000 when buying out a player from his overseas contract, up from $350,000.

    10. Along with an increase to four random drug tests per season for all veterans, ramped-up punishments for steroid violations call for a 10-game suspension for the first offense, 25 games for strike two, one full season for strike three and then a lifetime ban for the fourth offense.

    NEXT UP: SOME "AMNESTY CLAUSE" FINE PRINT

    Allan Houston and Michael Finley haven't said much about their futures since their names surfaced as the most likely former All-Stars to be waived via the new "amnesty clause", the onetime opportunity between Tuesday and Aug. 15 for teams to release a player without paying luxury tax on the rest of his contract.


    The relative silence makes it tough to forecast exactly what they'll be looking for as free agents -- besides the chance to join a championship contender -- after their expected releases.

    Which makes it tougher still to gauge how the "spread provision" in both players' contracts will affect their choices.

    Houston and Finley, according to NBA front-office sources, both possess considerable spread provisions in their contracts that would result in drawn-out payment schedules from the Knicks and Mavericks after being let go.

    In Finley's case, specifically, sources say the $51-plus million he's owed by Dallas over the next three seasons would be paid in annual increments of less than $5 million if he's waived by the Aug. 15 amnesty deadline. Houston's contract apparently includes a similar spread provision.

    Translation?

    Signing with a new team for a minimum contract in the sub-$2 million area, as Phoenix hopes to do with Finley, might not be so comfortable for either player. The fact that Finley wouldn't be able to collect his $51-plus million from the Mavs as originally scheduled over the next three seasons gives hope to a team like the Denver Nuggets, who are prepared to offer Finley their full $5 million mid-level exception.

    Another factor is the "set-off provision" that was restored to the amnesty clause in the final stages of collective bargaining. The set-off provision returns a percentage of what a player makes from his new team to the team paying off his terminated contract.

    In the new deal, the union fought to specifically word the amnesty clause to say that the set-off provision doesn't apply. That would have enabled players such as Houston and Finley to double-dip by collecting the full balance of their old contracts in addition to the payments from their new deals. But the league wouldn't give in, insisting that a chunk of an amnesty player's new earnings go back to the original team.


    This means that money probably will matter to amnesty players who possess a long-term payout provision in their contract. The assumption that Finley can earn up to $21 million next season -- a full $16 million from the Mavs and $5 million from a team like Denver offering the full mid-level -- is a fallacy. To go back to the Suns, who drafted him in 1995, Finley might be looking at a pay cut of Karl Malone-to-the-Lakers proportions, even though he would eventually receive every cent Dallas owes him.

    LINE ITEMS ...
    Finley is the obvious candidate to address the shooting void in Phoenix created by Johnson's imminent departure, but the Suns figure to rekindle their interest in Payton as well. Reason being: Johnson not only backed up Steve Nash but enabled Nash to play off the ball on occasion to take advantage of his deft shooting touch. Payton, like Johnson, could spell Nash or play alongside him, too, but the Suns don't have roster room for both Payton and Finley. ... It's not yet clear if Doug Christie will be released by the Orlando Magic via the amnesty clause or whether he'll be able to negotiate a buyout of the one year (at $8.2 million) left on his contract. What is clear, according to NBA front-office sources, is that the Christies (mandatory reference to wife Jackie) plan and hope to be in Dallas next season if Doug can extricate himself from the Magic. It remains to be seen how much Christie can still contribute after ongoing foot problems, but he's remembered in Big D for his dogged defense on Nash in more than one Sacramento-Dallas series. ... The Mavericks, meanwhile, say they have no interest in Cavaliers forward Drew Gooden, no matter how many times Gooden is mentioned as an alleged Dallas trade target. ... Needing a big man to balance a roster full of players 6-8 and under, and unsure (like the Bulls) about making a rich offer to Curry because of the Chicago center's recent heart ailment, Atlanta is closing in on Milwaukee restricted free agent Zaza Pachulia with what sources say is a four-year offer. ... Sacramento's Darius Songaila is another restricted free agent, but Washington remains hopeful of landing the Lithuanian banger via sign-and-trade, with guard Steve Blake potentially heading to the Kings. ... Flip Saunders' guaranteed base to coach the Detroit Pistons is an even $20 million over four seasons, but incentives -- if he hits them all -- could take the contract past the $26 million mark. ... The memo Commissioner Stern promised during the NBA Finals that will require teams and their personnel people to stay out of high school gyms is said to be forthcoming, but the memo isn't out yet because such a directive wouldn't be part of the collective-bargaining agreement.
    "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
    -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: ESPN: Ten nuggets in the new CBA (interesting read)

    Sacramento's Darius Songaila is another restricted free agent, but Washington remains hopeful of landing the Lithuanian banger via sign-and-trade, with guard Steve Blake potentially heading to the Kings.
    Anyone interested in Darius for the Pacers? If the Kings would consider trading him for Steve Blake, maybe they'd trade him instead for Anthony Johnson...
    "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
    -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: ESPN: Ten nuggets in the new CBA (interesting read)

      In the new deal, the union fought to specifically word the amnesty clause to say that the set-off provision doesn't apply. That would have enabled players such as Houston and Finley to double-dip by collecting the full balance of their old contracts in addition to the payments from their new deals. But the league wouldn't give in, insisting that a chunk of an amnesty player's new earnings go back to the original team.
      Sounds like if we waive Austin using the amnesty provision and he's then signed by another team, the Pacers will get a portion of his new contract back as compensation.

      On top of the luxury tax savings, that's icing on the cake...
      "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
      -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: ESPN: Ten nuggets in the new CBA (interesting read)

        They should probably call #1 the "Detroit Pistons" rule, as they did it TWICE in two seasons, basically getting Sheed and Arroyo for FREE. I like the new rule, btw.

        #2 is a good one, also, as is #10.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: ESPN: Ten nuggets in the new CBA (interesting read)

          Originally posted by blanket
          Anyone interested in Darius for the Pacers? If the Kings would consider trading him for Steve Blake, maybe they'd trade him instead for Anthony Johnson...
          I think that's very possible.

          How many Lithies do we need on this team, anyway?

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: ESPN: Ten nuggets in the new CBA (interesting read)

            Originally posted by Shade
            They should probably call #1 the "Detroit Pistons" rule, as they did it TWICE in two seasons, basically getting Sheed and Arroyo for FREE. I like the new rule, btw.

            #2 is a good one, also, as is #10.
            Was it Lindsay Hunter and Elden Campbell that they traded, the other team waived, and then the Pistons resigned?
            "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
            -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: ESPN: Ten nuggets in the new CBA (interesting read)

              Originally posted by Shade
              They should probably call #1 the "Detroit Pistons" rule, as they did it TWICE in two seasons, basically getting Sheed and Arroyo for FREE. I like the new rule, btw.

              #2 is a good one, also, as is #10.

              I don't think you're getting #1. If a player is traded and then waived they can sign for any team other than the one they were just traded from for the first 20-30 days.
              Play Mafia!
              Twitter

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: ESPN: Ten nuggets in the new CBA (interesting read)

                This is the third thread posted today that's relaying articles already posted. By 3 different people.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: ESPN: Ten nuggets in the new CBA (interesting read)

                  Originally posted by Hicks
                  This is the third thread posted today that's relaying articles already posted. By 3 different people.
                  Before posting I looked at the first page of thread titles and also ran a search on some of the text in the article and didn't find it here already.

                  Oh well. At least this thread is getting some activity...
                  "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
                  -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: ESPN: Ten nuggets in the new CBA (interesting read)

                    I posted this yesterday, I think.
                    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                    Comment

                    Previous template Next
                    Working...
                    X