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

I'll be pissed if the NBA has a lockout because of the age limit issue

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

    I'll be pissed if the NBA has a lockout because of the age limit issue

    If the age limit issue has anything to do with a lockout, I'll be pissed and I'll blame the owners. It is not an important enough issue to be a factor. As far as the more important issue of contract length, it seems like a pretty obvious compromise there. Just go to 5/4


    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/colum...had&id=2048860



    NBA commissioner David Stern and union chief Billy Hunter sat together at a podium at the All-Star Game in Denver in February, sharing a proverbial peace pipe.

    Hand in hand, the two claimed they were hopeful they would reach a deal on a new NBA collective-bargaining agreement before the current one expires June 30.

    "I'm really optimistic that we'll be able to do it," Stern said in February.

    Stern and Hunter promised to meet throughout March and April in an effort to hammer out the details and NBPA president Michael Curry felt they might reach an accord by the end of the regular season.

    The regular season ended a week ago, but there's still no agreement.

    Optimism that the league will avoid a lockout July 1 has waned over the past few weeks as the NBA and NBPA have come to an impasse on two key issues – contract length and an age limit.

    The league has been pushing to reduce the maximum number of years a contract can be guaranteed from seven years down to four seasons for players who are re-signing with their own team. For players signing with a new team, the league wants the number reduced from six to three years.

    The players have been proposing a reduction of one year for each veteran player-signing scenario. In February, both sides felt confident that they would meet in the middle, compromising at a maximum of five years for players re-signing and four years for players signing with a new team.

    However, the owners have held firm to the 4/3 plan, infuriating the union. Hunter feels that such a severe reduction is too large a concession. Owners want contract lengths reduced so that they can manage their payrolls better, have more flexibility to remake their rosters and minimize risks on big contracts. Players are, however, very reluctant to give such lucrative guarantees away and are frustrated because the move mainly protects owners from themselves.

    This issue is serious enough that Hunter began recruiting player agents last week, asking them to convince their clients that it's an issue worth risking a lockout over.

    The other issue, the 20-year-old age limit, is more symbolic than substantive for both sides. Stern has been pushing for it for years, more as a PR tool than an actual device to improve the game. Sponsors and season ticket holders didn't like the influx of young, unknown high school players into the game (though they sure didn't hesitate to get on LeBron James's bandwagon) and Stern has been determined to make a change.

    There's a pretty big split within the union on the issue. The rank-and-file players are willing to concede the issue as long as they get back something of value. In a negotiation like this, the easiest concessions to make are the ones that don't affect anyone currently in the union.

    However, union leadership, and Hunter specifically, is strongly opposed to an age limit. Hunter agrees with Jermaine O'Neal that there's a racial element to it, and, according to several agents who were in attendance at a meeting with Hunter last week, Hunter was passionate about fighting it.

    While no one believes the age-limit issue ultimately will hold up getting a deal done on either side, it's ruffled enough feathers to put its ultimate passage back into doubt.

    Other issues haven't been worked out as well, including raises, the luxury tax threshold and a new rookie scale, but sources on both sides said the deal will likely hinge on working out something on contract lengths.

    If the two sides can't work something out in the next nine weeks, the owners won't hesitate to lock out the players, hoping that they'll quickly concede. No one on either side wants a protracted lockout that would threaten the NBA season, but owners are not beyond locking the players out for a few months if it helps them get what they need.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: I'll be pissed if the NBA has a lockout because of the age limit issue

    there won't be an NBA lockout. Its all posturing by both sides. The both know that the league can't stand another stoppage.

    Also, Jermaine O'Neal really ahs nothing at stake in this, so its EASY for him to be OK with the youth movement.

    What about guys like Dale Davis, who could be let go for players that are not better NOW, but better THREE YEARS down the road? You telling me Dale couldn't contribute for the next year or two? Yet he may not get the chance, because of some 18 year old who is 5 times as talented, but TEN times as green.

    I don't really care what JO wants to say about this, because his job is secure no matter what. I want to know what Dale, Cliff Robinson, Kevin Willis, Vlade Divac, Reggie Miller, Dekembe Mutombo and Jon Barry have to say about it.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: I'll be pissed if the NBA has a lockout because of the age limit issue

      Besides, when it comes to this issue, the players will cave. They're going to vote THEIR interests, not some snotnose looking to take their job. If the league gives them a little sugar to make the medicine go down, it will go all the quicker.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: I'll be pissed if the NBA has a lockout because of the age limit issue

        Frankly, I don't want the 4/3. It's too short, so you're constantly going to have to renegotiate. 5/4 is a much better way to go, IMO.

        As for age, I still think the better way to go is the solution I asked Stern about, the sliding rookie scale. But no, he wants to be BMOC and have it his way, regardless of the fact it'll get struck down in court. Unlike the NFL, anybody who passed the bar will be able to show ample evidence that an 18-year old can excel in the NBA, and the rule will be struck down as age-discrimination faster than you can say Johnnie Cochran.
        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: I'll be pissed if the NBA has a lockout because of the age limit issue

          Originally posted by Kegboy
          Frankly, I don't want the 4/3. It's too short, so you're constantly going to have to renegotiate. 5/4 is a much better way to go, IMO.

          As for age, I still think the better way to go is the solution I asked Stern about, the sliding rookie scale. But no, he wants to be BMOC and have it his way, regardless of the fact it'll get struck down in court. Unlike the NFL, anybody who passed the bar will be able to show ample evidence that an 18-year old can excel in the NBA, and the rule will be struck down as age-discrimination faster than you can say Johnnie Cochran.
          Stern is an accomplished lawyer. There's no way he'd be pushing for this if he wasn't SURE he could make it stick in court.

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: I'll be pissed if the NBA has a lockout because of the age limit issue

            Originally posted by Kstat
            Stern is an accomplished lawyer. There's no way he'd be pushing for this if he wasn't SURE he could make it stick in court.
            He's an accomplished corporate-law lawyer who hasn't practiced in close to 30 years. My opinion is he saw the NFL succeed, so he thought he'd hit for the fences.
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: I'll be pissed if the NBA has a lockout because of the age limit issue

              Originally posted by Kegboy
              He's an accomplished corporate-law lawyer who hasn't practiced in close to 30 years. My opinion is he saw the NFL succeed, so he thought he'd hit for the fences.
              No, he was the ONE guy preaching from the rooftops that the NFL WOULD succeed. This is when EVERYONE in the media was saying that the NFL was going to lose. I remember him saying from the beginning that the NFL's age limit would hold up in court.

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: I'll be pissed if the NBA has a lockout because of the age limit issue

                Originally posted by Kstat
                No, he was the ONE guy preaching from the rooftops that the NFL WOULD succeed. This is when EVERYONE in the media was saying that the NFL was going to lose. I remember him saying from the beginning that the NFL's age limit would hold up in court.
                Well, when I saw him here, he said they were watching the NFL's case with interest, but in case they couldn't get a strict age limit, they had to come up with other ways to deal with the issue.

                And as I said above, it's a lot easier to defend an age limit that's always been in place than putting one into effect that can be shown to be discrimitory.
                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: I'll be pissed if the NBA has a lockout because of the age limit issue

                  Originally posted by Kegboy
                  Well, when I saw him here, he said they were watching the NFL's case with interest, but in case they couldn't get a strict age limit, they had to come up with other ways to deal with the issue.
                  here is a solution. If the owners really don't want the young guys in the league DON'T DRAFT THEM! Now don't be stupid like baseball and have a meeting about it, just leave them hanging out to dry like the NCAA does.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: I'll be pissed if the NBA has a lockout because of the age limit issue

                    Really, what needs to happen is we get a real farm system in place. Then, we follow baseball and hockey in saying, "If you're not drafted out of high-school, then you can't be drafted until after college." That way, we get the LeBron's in the league right away, we have a farm system to teach the JO's and Bender's how to play the right way, and everybody else is stuck in college, so the NCAA doesn't suffer.

                    Problem is, that's a good 5-10 years from being a reality. **** Stern for not buying the CBA when it was still viable. If he had, we'd be a lot closer.
                    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: I'll be pissed if the NBA has a lockout because of the age limit issue

                      Originally posted by Kegboy
                      Really, what needs to happen is we get a real farm system in place. Then, we follow baseball and hockey in saying, "If you're not drafted out of high-school, then you can't be drafted until after college." That way, we get the LeBron's in the league right away, we have a farm system to teach the JO's and Bender's how to play the right way, and everybody else is stuck in college, so the NCAA doesn't suffer.

                      Problem is, that's a good 5-10 years from being a reality. **** Stern for not buying the CBA when it was still viable. If he had, we'd be a lot closer.
                      If I'm not mistaken, baseball players can be drafted agin after their soph. season. The hoops players don't have the option of college if they enter the draft, agent or not. That is the NCAA's fault, not the NBA's.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: I'll be pissed if the NBA has a lockout because of the age limit issue

                        The age limit really isn't that big of a deal to the players, what they want is for Stern to pay for it and that is a smart move for the players.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: I'll be pissed if the NBA has a lockout because of the age limit issue

                          You are comparing apples and oranges, Basketball can not be compared to baseball or hockey due the minors and team rights they have established.

                          The age limit will not be the lock out issue becuase the majority of players are in favor and so is the union. The union uis about protecting the jobs of the current players not the future.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: I'll be pissed if the NBA has a lockout because of the age limit issue

                            The owners caused this mess, They are the ones to started drafting HS boys. Instead of waiting till they finished College.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: I'll be pissed if the NBA has a lockout because of the age limit issue

                              Originally posted by Kstat
                              What about guys like Dale Davis, who could be let go for players that are not better NOW, but better THREE YEARS down the road? You telling me Dale couldn't contribute for the next year or two? Yet he may not get the chance, because of some 18 year old who is 5 times as talented, but TEN times as green.

                              I don't really care what JO wants to say about this, because his job is secure no matter what. I want to know what Dale, Cliff Robinson, Kevin Willis, Vlade Divac, Reggie Miller, Dekembe Mutombo and Jon Barry have to say about it.
                              A good way to look at this is to look at players who, three years ago, were veterans near the end of their careers, and are no longer on NBA rosters (but wish they were). Two guys that come to mind are Kenny Anderson and Mark Jackson. Here's the dirty secret: the reason they're not playing has nothing to do with younger players taking up their roster spots, and an age limit would not make them any more likely to get picked up by a team.

                              Most teams would love to have a veteran player who could produce. The reason the Clippers waived Kenny Anderson may have had something to do with the 18-year old Shaun Livingston, but here are two important questions: 1) as a GM, which of those guys would you rather pay?, and 2) if he deserves a roster spot somewhere, why didn't any contending teams pick him up after he was waived, as we did with Davis and Detroit did with Elden Campbell? Because he can't help. Not because of some 18-year-old, but because he simply can't compete in this league anymore.

                              If a guy can help, he'll make a roster. Dale lost his spot in Golden State and New Orleans, and Indy picked him up. If Indy hadn't picked him up, any number of other teams would have wanted to. These guys - Reggie, Dale, Deke, Barry - have secure jobs despite the proliferation of 18-year olds, because they can produce. As long as they can, they will have jobs.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X