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

Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 12
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 12 template Next
  • #1

    Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

    http://nba.nbcsports.com/2016/07/13/...or-the-league/

    Adam Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for the league


    The Warriors — featuring Stephen Curry, Kevin Durant, Draymond Green and Klay Thompson — are favored over the field to win the 2017 NBA title.

    The Cavaliers — with LeBron James, Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love — are favored over the field to win the Eastern Conference in 2017.

    Is that a problem?

    NBA commissioner Adam Silver, via ASAP Sports:

    I’ll say, and I’ve read several stories suggesting that that’s something that the league wants, this notion of two super teams, that it’s a huge television attraction. I don’t think it’s good for the league, just to be really clear. I will say whoever is the prohibitive favorite, try telling that to the 430 other players who aren’t on those two teams. I mean, we have the greatest collection of basketball players in the world in our league, and so I’m not making any predictions, but there’s no question, when you aggregate a group of great players, they have a better chance of winning than many other teams. On the other hand, there are lots of things that have to happen.

    We’ll see what happens in Golden State. You had a great, great chemistry among a group of players and you’re adding another superstar to the mix, so it’ll be interesting to see what happens. But just to be absolutely clear, I do not think that’s ideal from a league standpoint.

    I mean, for me as I discussed earlier, part of it is designing a collective bargaining agreement that encourages the distribution of great players throughout the league.

    On the other hand, I absolutely respect a player’s right to become a free agent, and in this case for Kevin Durant to make a decision that he feels is best for him, and I have no idea what is in his mind or heart in terms of how he went about making that decision. But we’ll see. As I said, in a way the good news is that we are in a collective bargaining cycle, so it gives everybody an opportunity, owners and the union, to sit down behind closed doors and take a fresh look at the system and see if there is a better way that we can do it.

    My belief is we can make it better.

    This is a great answer. Someone can respect Durant’s decision while still desiring a system that doesn’t produce similar decisions.

    But what is that system?

    It needs to be something both owners and players agree on, which obviously removes some draconian options.

    Eliminating individual max salaries might be the best compromise.

    The Warriors had max cap room for Durant. They could not have kept their other stars and cleared enough cap space to compete with a mega offer from, say, the Nets. Perhaps Durant still would’ve chosen Golden State’s talent and culture. He took less money to leave the Thunder. But if the difference in money were far more significant, it would’ve given him more to consider.

    Now is the time to resolve this issue (if it is an issue). Either side can opt out of the Collective Bargaining Agreement by December 15, which would cause it to expire after the season.

    The more money the NBA is making, the less likely a lockout becomes — and the league is making unprecedented money. Neither owners nor players will want to forgo that huge income for any amount of time.

    But that’s not the only factor. If either side believes there’s more money to be made, it will push for it.

    Silver’s answer suggests the owners believe increased parity is a better business model. Some players outside Golden State and Cleveland might agree, though, as Silver said, they’ll still play hard in the meantime to prove the oddsmakers wrong.

    A third straight Warriors-Cavaliers Finals is not nearly as inevitable as it seems to many right now. A compelling season, despite initial reservations, could change the tenor of this conversation
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

    Pretty much stating the obvious, but kudos to him for admitting it.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

      Would using analytics to rate markets and then allowing lesser markets to offer more money to free agents be considered draconian? Because that's what I would propose.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

        It's stuff like this that really show the stark contrast between Silver and Stern. I can't imagine Stern getting up there and admitting there is a real problem like this or the officiating issues without it being some angle to affect the CBA money. Not that he didn't do anything, but he certainly wasn't as open and transparent about his concerns as Silver is being.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

          I said when it happened that this would really effect the next cba just like the big 3 move in Miami did. I don't know that they're really that far off as the new cba seemed to be working better than the old one up until this huge spike in the cap happened.
          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

            Gonna be a lonnnng lockout. How u?

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

              Originally posted by MnvrChvy View Post
              It's stuff like this that really show the stark contrast between Silver and Stern. I can't imagine Stern getting up there and admitting there is a real problem like this or the officiating issues without it being some angle to affect the CBA money. Not that he didn't do anything, but he certainly wasn't as open and transparent about his concerns as Silver is being.

              It only appears that way they aren't that different.

              This is posturing it would be hard to sell that the NBA is suffering when you have monster ratings despite the lack of parity.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                There really should be a franchise tag.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                  The bottom line is that teams unwilling to go into the LT will at some point have to let a star go (if they have done a good job drafting) and it tells the other players that they are not committed to winning a title.

                  What they need is a first team exemption that makes it so that anyone you draft or even trade for on draft night or an undrafted rookie whatever (so long as they have only been a member of your team) their salary does not count against the LT, I think that's the only way the small market teams like Oklahoma City and Indianapolis can really be competitive. So for the Pacers PG's contract would not count against the LT, neither would have Roy's when he was here. Now when we were knocking on the door and Larry said we wont go into the LT and we just never got over the hump, maybe he could have signed one more player or made a trade because we would not have been in the LT.

                  It rewards teams who draft well.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                    More holier than thou talk from another jaded Pacers fan...

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                      Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
                      ............ and it tells the other players that they are not committed to winning a title. ..
                      Or it says that the owner is running a business and isn't going to overspend.

                      Hard cap. It seems to have worked well enough for the NFL.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                        Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                        Or it says that the owner is running a business and isn't going to overspend.

                        Hard cap. It seems to have worked well enough for the NFL.
                        There will never, ever, ever be a hard cap. And it would be stupid to have one anyway. Teams would get punished for drafting too well.

                        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

                        • #13
                          Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                          Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                          There really should be a franchise tag.
                          A topic I'm sure Adam silver will bring to the negotiating table just so he can have something to take off the negotiating table in favor of things that actually have a 1/1,000,000 shot of happening.

                          Players will never agree to any proposal that could conceivably lock them in to a terribly run franchise for the life of their career. No way now how does that ever pass.

                          As it stands NBA teams get first rounders for essentially 7-9 years. That's long enough to build around a player and he's more than earned the right to decide where he wants to play after that amount of time.

                          The best you're going to get is possible compensation in terms of draft picks for a team that loses a franchise type player. The union will fight any franchise tag to the bitter end and the NBA frankly loves the attention they get in free agency anyway. At least make it where teams losing a franchise star get something in return.
                          Last edited by Kstat; 07-14-2016, 08:50 AM.

                          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

                          • #14
                            Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            A topic I'm sure Adam silver will bring to the negotiating table just so he can have something to take off the negotiating table in favor of things that actually have a 1/1,000,000 shot of happening.
                            Yep.

                            But you have to wonder if the owners even want it. Sure, the teams losing a franchise player would love it. But teams that want to gain one would hate it.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                              How much of the problem is just the spike this year though? The CBA was looking pretty solid until this spike that allowed a championship team the flexibility to add KD. Are we going to have another $20 million jump again? The owners signed that giant TV deal and waited too long to suggest a cap smoothing process.

                              Basketball will always be unique in the way that its a team sport that is dominated by individuals. No matter where the best go, they will make a team great most likely. And big markets will always exist, meaning they can always retool and rebuild quicker because money matters. In the NFL if JJ Watt left Houston for the Patriots, sure it would **** people off, but it wouldn't mean NE would be so far ahead of the league like we look at GSW is now. And thats just the nature of the game.

                              Basically just don't allow a $20 million jump in the cap anymore.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 12 template Next
                              Working...
                              X