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:
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

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

Eliminate the Salary Cap? | Cuban Radical (Big Market) Idea

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Eliminate the Salary Cap? | Cuban Radical (Big Market) Idea

    NBA: Union, not Cuban, proposed eliminating salary cap

    Read more:

    NEW YORK (AP) -- The NBA players' association, not Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, proposed the elimination of the salary cap during negotiations aimed at ending months of labor strife, a league official said Tuesday.
    NBA senior vice president Mike Bass said union executive director Billy Hunter made "several misstatements" during an hour-long podcast with on Monday. Among them was the revelation of the salary cap plan, which Bass said was actually an exception to the cap, not the elimination of it.
    Hunter said that, during a meeting last week, Cuban proposed what he called a "game changer" - a plan to replace the salary cap with a heavy tax for teams that spent to a certain level. Hunter said the players were interested in discussing it further and that two or three other owners in the room were really excited about it, but then were told by the owners they wouldn't pursue it.
    "On behalf of the league, Mark Cuban proposed adding a new salary cap exception, not eliminating the salary cap," Bass said. "It was the union that, in response, proposed eliminating the salary cap, a proposal that was even worse for the NBA than the union's prior proposals."
    Hunter speculated during the podcast that owners backed away from the idea of eliminating the salary cap because it had been implemented under Commissioner David Stern long ago.
    "And so I don't know whether there's any pushback because of that," Hunter said. "But we were prepared to pursue that whole idea of going into a different direction, where we would be able to, wouldn't have to worry about a cap. So the exceptions, salaries, all of that would be, there would be no limit with the exception of there being obviously a cap at the top, i.e., a quite heavy tax that teams would have to confront if they went above a certain number.
    "But what happened was the owners decided, at least the leaders of their delegation, decided they had to take it back in a different direction. They said we don't want to address that."
    The NBA does not allow owners to comment on the negotiations. A person briefed on the content of the meetings said Cuban's actual proposal was much different than what Hunter suggested, and was surprised the union ignored it given that it would have met much of what players were seeking.
    The sides met for three days with a federal mediator before talks broke down after players said owners insisted they commit to a 50-50 split of revenues before any further discussions about the salary cap system could continue. Small groups of officials from each side will resume talks Wednesday, a person with knowledge of the plans said, and NBA would soon have to cancel more games without a deal.
    Union officials were angry with the league's characterization of the breakdown of the talks Thursday. Now the league is unhappy with Hunter's portrayal of the negotiations, such as when he mentioned items like a hard salary cap and salary rollbacks that owners are no longer proposing.
    "In his podcast interview with Bill Simmons, Billy Hunter makes several misstatements and blatantly mischaracterizes the parties' negotiations, the financial benefit to players from the NBA's latest offer, and the benefits from the system changes the NBA has proposed to improve team competitiveness," Bass said.
    Bass also said the union has proposed a 10-year collective bargaining agreement, with mutual opt-outs after years six and eight. Owners have been seeking a 10-year deal, but the union has repeatedly said it doesn't want to go longer than six years.
    The union would like players to get out from the rookie salary scale quicker than five years, with Hunter mentioning MVP Derrick Rose and Rookie of the Year Blake Griffin on the podcast as players who are underpaid because they are still locked into their scale figures.
    "In response to the union's suggestion that top-performing rookies have an opportunity to get higher pay, we have proposed a new bonus pool for rookie scale players who earn designated league honors like MVP and All-NBA first, second, or third teams," Bass said. "Billy fails to mention this."
    However, union spokesman Dan Wasserman said the league has never presented a dollar figure that would go with the bonus pool.
    Bass also disputed Hunter's notion that the owners are seeking a more favorable CBA because many of them lost money in their other businesses as a result of the economic downtown.
    "The owners reasonably believe they should have the opportunity to make a profit in a business that annually generates over $4 billion in revenue and pays the players over $2 billion," Bass said. "It has nothing whatsoever to do with making up for losses in other businesses."

    Read more:

  • #2
    Re: Eliminate the Salary Cap? | Cuban Radical (Big Market) Idea

    I'm quite certain that would be the death of Pacer Basketball...


    • #3
      Re: Eliminate the Salary Cap? | Cuban Radical (Big Market) Idea

      Yes. I agree, AND I believe this is a subversive form of contraction. A way for Cuban to outspend the small market teams in to shallow graves.


      • #4
        Re: Eliminate the Salary Cap? | Cuban Radical (Big Market) Idea

        That's just sickening that a majority of players probably would support eliminating the salary cap. I'm glad that the small market owners are a majority force of money and power. Their pockets run as deep as the other owners. They just own teams in small markets and lose money due to the NBA being an unfair joke currently.

        I'm ready to cancel the season if a fair, balanced, and competitive league does not come out of this deal.

        I'm just really worried about losing the guys on our team like Hibbert, Rush, Stephenson, etc. because we didn't get to properly evaluate them or give them a contract extension this season before the free agency begins. If there is no cap we will surely lose them to the highest bidder because Simon isn't Cuban and doesn't run the Pacers like his expensive hobby.

        And isn't there already virtually no cap now? Teams just pay the luxury tax? Isn't that why the NBA isn't balanced and a majority of the teams are losing money already? Inflated contracts due to the joke of a salary cap, and big market favoritism is why we have reached the breaking point. The only way to fix the problem is with a hard cap and T.V. and ticket revenue sharing. All teams make money. The whole NBA becomes more profitable. This is a small group of billionaires stealing all the profits of a bigger group of billionaires. I still maintain my stance the owners losing money have more money and power than the owners of the big markets teams that are making money.

        This is truly a battle of the giants. Luckily we are on the side of the majority force.
        Last edited by Midcoasted; 10-26-2011, 11:23 AM.


        • #5
          Re: Eliminate the Salary Cap? | Cuban Radical (Big Market) Idea

          I bet there would be a dog fight over where that Tax Line Cuban proposes would be. Is it $75M or is it $60M. There would be a huge contingent of owners in favor of making that as low as possible. The large market owners would fight that and so would the players.

          I have suggested a similar approach to what they are suggesting. There would have to be significant revenue sharing in this model for it to work. I would think that number would have to come in somewhere around $65M. Anybody over it pays $4 to $1 if we suggest a system similar to what Cuban I believe is suggesting. I still would prefer local TV revenues to be shared and roughly a $2.50 to one ratio for overspending. That would make more sense or all parties, IMO. It would seemingly simplify the system a bit for ease in future negotiations.

          I think the owners have to take the angle that more players will get paid by more teams with equitable distribution. Without that only four or five teams can afford to really pay anyone. There will be restrictions on their pay regardless of which market they are in, so why not push for 25 teams like the Pacers to be able to consistently afford 15 guys who average $4+M per year? I think if the players don't want to reduce their BRI split they should agree to a "harder line salary cap" that includes more revenue sharing and should ask the owners to split local TV revenues in return for shortening contracts by one year as well. I hate the exceptions, because they seem to help the large market teams be more competitive yearly after spending too much and the smaller markets with a lower payroll are burdened with either a lower salary cap or taking the exceptions. There should be a cap band where you get taxed $1 to $1 for being under $45M and $2.5 to $1 for being over $65M. Then everything is fair game in free agency.

          Oh and raises of 8% and 10.5% are a killer of the system. They need to be scaled back to 3% and 5% or 4% and 6%. Even 5% and 7% would get us in the right direction. Limit deals to 4 years. Five to stay with your team and lose the sign and trade. Three years would be max for an extension.

          I would also propose a special exemption for teams. They get one chance to get rid of a player contract if waived within the time frame of the new CBA. This could be called the Gilbert Arenas rule, where a team would have to apply to the league to drop one contract from their salary cap. Then the team and player would go to mediation over the reasons behind it. If it is behavioral, then the standard could be set at a team not having to pay any of the contract for something significant. Jamaal Tinsley could reap say 50% of his contract considering his legal snafus and it wouldn't have hurt the Pacers' cap. If we dropped Murphy, he would get the full contract for just not being very good. These onerous contracts prevent other, more deserving players from getting paid. It would have to occur before the trade deadline in any given year.

          Give the players something to vote on. Please.
          "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."


          • #6
            Re: Eliminate the Salary Cap? | Cuban Radical (Big Market) Idea

            So how does this work with the "no punitive tax" stance of the NBPA? I suspect they want no cap PLUS a fairly toothless tax structure.

            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...


            • #7
              Re: Eliminate the Salary Cap? | Cuban Radical (Big Market) Idea

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              So how does this work with the "no punitive tax" stance of the NBPA? I suspect they want no cap PLUS a fairly toothless tax structure.
              No punitive tax would effectively kill the league's attempt at fair competitive balance. More reason to undermine the thoughts of the NBPA. I just don't get what they are talking about sometimes. And it isn't because they are talking over my head.
              "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."


              • #8
                Re: Eliminate the Salary Cap? | Cuban Radical (Big Market) Idea

                Crazy. I guess Donald Sterling would love this -- keep your salaries low, and watch the tax money come to you. Profit.
                But this would open doors for any contender to go bankrupt, even the big market ones. Knicks buy Dwight, CP3, Iggy and a bench, end up at 100+ mil, win the next 10 titles and spend billions on luxury tax alone in that decade. Tell me that wouldn't happen?
                Not good for the league at all.

                PS I'm not even sure why the players want this.
                If the BRI split stays, the players will have to give most of the money (if not all) back anyway. No serious gain. It just kills the league.
                Sounds like a counterproductive offer. Simply for PR.
                Or do they want to remove any BRI split as well?
                Last edited by ballism; 10-26-2011, 08:22 PM.


                • #9
                  Re: Eliminate the Salary Cap? | Cuban Radical (Big Market) Idea

                  Originally posted by ballism View Post
                  . . . Or do they want to remove any BRI split as well?
                  not sure about the rest, but the players would love doing away with the BRI split. there are years that no BRI split would work against the players, but usually the players are the one's giving money back to the owners.