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

CBA what we know of owners' proposal

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 4
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
  • #1

    CBA what we know of owners' proposal

    There's a very nice post by Storyteller (who has his own salary info site) on Blazers Edge putting together all the known public info of the owners' proposal. We've discussed some of the details in various threads, but I've never seen them all put together in one place. So here it is:

    http://www.blazersedge.com/2011/5/20...-for-a-new-cba

    What we've been told about the Owner's recent proposal for a new CBA
    by Storyteller on May 21, 2011 12:34 AM PDT

    With an impending lockout in sight, as the current Collective Bargaining Agreement will expire on June 30th, there has been a lot of speculation both in the media and here on BlazersEdge as to what the new CBA will look like once the owners and the NBPA (player's union) come to an agreement. I wish I could tell you what that agreement will entail, but I don't own a crystal ball. No one knows with full certainty what the rules will be under a new CBA. We do, however, have a good idea of what the owners are suggesting that it looks like, based upon their most recent proposal.

    I have seen and heard discussions of single pieces of this proposal, but have yet to see anyone try to put together a full picture of what has been proposed. So I thought I'd compile various media reports and try to do so. Note that it is extremely unlikely that every element of this proposal will actually make it into the new CBA, as the NBPA quickly rejected the proposal earlier this month, but by understanding what the owners appear to want, we might be better able to predict what the landscape could be like for the NBA to conduct business in the future.

    ***

    I am basing this list on several recent articles: a piece by Chris Sheridan and Chris Broussard of ESPN on May 4th, a piece by Mark Stein of ESPN on May 12th and a piece by John Lombardo of the Sports Business Journal that appeared on the Sporting News website on May 16th, These reports indicate that the owners have proposed the following:

    A hard salary cap, starting in the 2013-14 season at a level of $45 million. The next two years would continue to operate under a soft cap (meaning that exceptions will continue to make it possible for teams to operate above the cap) with a luxury tax system, but by the fall of 2013, every franchise must have a team salary figure of less than $45 million. Teams could no longer go over the cap to re-sign their own free agents or go over the cap to sign 1st round draft picks or go over the cap to do any of the things that current exceptions allow them to do.

    Reductions in all existing player contracts of between 15% and 25%. Apparently, current contracts would be seen as being in one of three tiers, based on the amount of annual salary that the player is scheduled to make, with each tier bringing one of those percentage reductions. There looks to still be a minimum salary amount for players, so the reductions would not take their salary below that minimum level, but a large number of players whose contracts extend further than this season would see significant reductions in how much money they would make.

    Reductions in the maximum contract amounts available. Players would not be able to make as much as they are able to make under the current CBA.

    Reductions in the amount of future rookie scale contracts. 1st round draft picks that sign within 3 years of being drafted currently are slotted into a rookie scale amount based on their draft position. Under this proposal, rookie salaries would still be limited, but at a level even lower than they are under the current CBA.

    Reductions in raises from one year to another within a contract. Under the current CBA, most players signing a non-minimum contract are eligible for a yearly raise equal to at least 8% of the first year's salary amount in that contract. If a player is signed using the Larry Bird exception or the Early Bird exception, he is actually able to receive a yearly raise equal to 10.5% of the first year's salary amount. However, the owners are now proposing that those percentages be reduced to 2% without Bird rights and 3% with Bird rights.

    Reductions in the maximum contract length available. Under the current CBA, players with Bird rights can sign a contract of up to 6 years in length. All other players are limited to a contract that is, at most, 5 years in length (some players, depending on their circumstances, are limited to even shorter deals). The owners propose that those players with Bird rights would be able to receive a contract of up to 4 years in length, with all others limited to 3 years at most.

    The elimination of sign-and-trade contracts. Currently, a player can negotiate to sign with his previous team and be traded within 48 hours to the team of his choice, as long as all three parties are amiable to such a deal. This would no longer be available under this proposal.

    The elimination of fully guaranteed contracts. No longer would NBA contracts be fully guaranteed. The first $8 million of any contract could be, at most, 50% guaranteed and any amount over $8 million could be, at most, 25% guaranteed. This would cover both existing contracts and any new contracts signed under the new CBA.

    The creation of a 'Star' designation for one player per team. This is not the same as the Franchise Tag designation of the NFL, which is a unilateral decision on the part of the team. Instead, players with this designation would, if they agree to re-sign with their previous team, receive more salary and a longer contract than what would be available for any other player on the team. Players would have the choice as to whether or not to accept this offer, but there would be clear financial incentive to do so. I have not seen any details printed as to what specific incentives would be available to these players, but it appears that they would be the only exceptions to many of the restrictions listed above in terms of salary amount and contract length.

    An amnesty program which would allow each franchise to waive one player and not have that player's salary count against their cap. Each player waived under this provision would still be paid, although it is unclear whether this payment would be at the current salary amount or at the amount reduced by the provision described above. It is also unclear what other rules would apply to such a program, although the assumption is that they would be similar to those that accompanied the 2005 amnesty program.

    Designation of each player into one of 4 categories. Under this proposal, each player contract would fit into one of these categories: 1) A minimum salary player; 2) A rookie scale player; 3) A maximum salary player; 4) Everybody else, with their salaries dictated by whatever salary cap room is available after the first three categories of players are accounted for.

    ----------------

    IN SHORT, the owners clearly have put together a proposal designed to reduce player salaries by the implementation of a hard salary cap that would start in the 2013-14 season. The other proposed changes are, for the most part, designed to aid franchises towards reaching that goal.
    As Storyteller says, none of these provisions are set in stone, and it can be assumed that the players will eventually negotiate some of these provisions down.

    On other hand, it does reveal the mindset of the owners. It's also worth noting that the players find this proposal so unacceptable that they decided to file a labor complaint rather than negotiate on this basis.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: CBA what we know of owners' proposal

    Originally posted by wintermute
    It's also worth noting that the players find this proposal so unacceptable that they decided to file a labor complaint rather than negotiate on this basis.
    Not hard to see why. That's a LOT of changes.
    This space for rent.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: CBA what we know of owners' proposal

      Thanks Mute. Anthem's right, that's a lot to digest.

      First, I just can't take that $45M number seriously. That's half of what some franchises are paying right now. I think the owners go into this expecting that to get negotiated up into the sixties, which won't matter to the Players. A hard cap is a hard cap.

      No S&T's answers my earlier question about the "Star" provision. In all I think it's a good move. It used to be insurance for the small-market team to get something, but it's been abused by both sides. Morway's Peja exeption, while it was certainly good for us, IMO blatantly circumvented the spirit of the rule. And we saw how LeBron and Bosh blackmailed their teams into getting longer deals just so the teams would get something.

      As a small-market fan, I do believe serious changes need to be made. But it scares me how one-sided this proposal is. When you contrast this with the NFL, I mean, there's nothing even remotely good for the players here. No bones thrown there way at all. This is so much more draconian than '99 ever was. This is at least NHL 2004, which equaled no season.

      Now, maybe there's more we don't know about. But when the best thing you can say to the players is, "Well, the lower end guys only get their pay cut by 15%", i just don't know how you possibly sell that. Hard to break the union along class lines there.
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: CBA what we know of owners' proposal

        FWIW, the current CBA has the players getting just over 57% of the BRI. Near as I can tell, this proposal cuts that share to about 40%. It also cuts current player salaries. While the players might be willing to cut salaries of players in the future, there is no way they are voting to cut their own current salaries.

        Does anyone have any ideas of what the actual final CBA will look like?

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: CBA what we know of owners' proposal

          Kegboy, on balance I agree on S&Ts. They do tend to get abused, essentially allowing another team to benefit from the home team's Bird rights, which is not the original intent. I do think however that we'll see an increase in Deron-style trades (i.e. trade a superstar before he leaves) if the S&T option is taken away.


          Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
          As a small-market fan, I do believe serious changes need to be made. But it scares me how one-sided this proposal is. When you contrast this with the NFL, I mean, there's nothing even remotely good for the players here. No bones thrown there way at all. This is so much more draconian than '99 ever was. This is at least NHL 2004, which equaled no season.
          Definitely agree. A recipe for a long lockout. The best thing you can say about this proposal is that perhaps the owners are just staking out bargaining position so that they'll look generous once its negotiated down. But if that's the strategy, it seems to have backfired, with the players displaying a willingness to play hardball.

          Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
          Does anyone have any ideas of what the actual final CBA will look like?
          Well, obviously no, given how far apart the two sides are. Feel free to speculate though

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: CBA what we know of owners' proposal

            No good can come from a negotiation where one side is clearly trying to take advantage of the other.

            With these rules, the owners are not trying to do that. They are trying to gang rape the players with no lube. Bijou Phillips in Havoc thinks this is over the line.

            I don't expect a season next year without radical concessions by the owners. It is one thing to start high and compromise to center. It's another to start on Everest and work your way down to Kilamanjaro after you've been at sea level for a few decades.

            The NCAA is the only winner here.
            "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

            -Lance Stephenson

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: CBA what we know of owners' proposal

              Owners say:








              Players say:

















              Fans say:





              Comment

              • #8
                Re: CBA what we know of owners' proposal

                I can what the owners are doing this. They are taking all the money risk and the players contracts are getting way out of hand. The players are making alot of money playing agame if the have to take a small pay cut they are still making more money than 95 percent of us. I like the ideal of a hard cap (it works for football) . The small markets will have a better chance of keeping their own `star player` . I do fill that the cap will be alot higher than 45 million ,maybe around 55. But like I said this is my own opion.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: CBA what we know of owners' proposal

                  I know the proposal is extreme, but I cannot respect the players for going straight to court instead of trying to talk it out first. In some ways this is just a reflection of our society. Instead of trying to work it out we just immediately take people to court.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: CBA what we know of owners' proposal

                    Personally, I don't find the owners proposal "out of line" at all. A proposal is just that: a proposal. It is made for no other reason than to get the other side to counter, just as any of us would do in purchasing a house.

                    And, I have no problem with the union not making a counter proposal. They are sending a clear message that they believe the owners' proposal is so far different than what the union could accept that they are not able yet to counter with anything resembling a middle ground.

                    I recall several years ago when selling my previous home, I received what I thought was a ridiculously low offer. The word my agent got from the other agent was that the couple really liked the home, but they were also really looking for a "deal". I hadn't had many bites, so I didn't want to lose my prospect. So, I sent a messager and countered with an offer about 15K higher than my original asking price, just to let the buyer know that I found their offer insulting but that I was still willing to deal if they were. The buyer fell into line very quickly, and I sold for just a few thousand less than my asking price.

                    The union more or less did the same thing as I did when they originally countered by stating they wanted to keep the current agreement in place. The owners put forth a new offer to emphasize that they believe that a hard cap is important for a better competitive balance and that overall salary must be reduced to provide the teams an opportunity to actually break even or return a profit.

                    So far, what is going on is not any different than what any of us should expect. Even the players realize that something must be done to benefit competitive balance, so a hard cap is likely to be the result. They are also wise enough to realize that a hard cap will result in tighter control over salaries. So, all that is really left is for an offer to be made that is in the ball park of what can be accepted by the players in order for the two sides to begin serious negotiations.

                    Edit:
                    And in response to the statement above about NBA players making more than probably 95% of us, that statement is correct, but is not "strong" enough. Under the current recession, only 1.5% of American households makes 250K or more. So, I feel comfortable in saying that the minimum NBA salary is higher than more than 99% of individual taxpayers are making.
                    Last edited by beast23; 05-29-2011, 12:25 AM.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: CBA what we know of owners' proposal

                      I would have rather seen the players simply counter with a proposal where they basically get everything they want, rather than going to a third party.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: CBA what we know of owners' proposal

                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        I would have rather seen the players simply counter with a proposal where they basically get everything they want, rather than going to a third party.
                        I agree, if this goes anything like the NFL they are in for a long fight. I hate seeing things go like that. It is more about ego than anything else.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: CBA what we know of owners' proposal

                          I think of myself as someone understanding of the owners, but nothing in here even begins to be acceptable. If you put forth something that ridiculous, you get what is coming to you.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: CBA what we know of owners' proposal

                            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                            I know the proposal is extreme, but I cannot respect the players for going straight to court instead of trying to talk it out first. In some ways this is just a reflection of our society. Instead of trying to work it out we just immediately take people to court.
                            You think they haven't been talking? They said when this came down that it was practically the same deal they've been talking about for a year, and they still gave it another month. Their intention is to block the lockout from happening, in which case they had to move now.
                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: CBA what we know of owners' proposal

                              Seems everyone wants to dog the owners, but you realize a 45 million hard cap would put the Pacers on a level playing field with every team in the league, AND would probably make the team profitable, right?

                              Ensuring we have the same opportunities NYC, and LA has, and making sure it's plausible the Pacers go nowhere in the near future. We should probably be rooting for the owners, not giving them crap.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
                              Working...
                              X