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

Pat Riley thinks NBA should have "franchise tag"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Pat Riley thinks NBA should have "franchise tag"

    It's a bit ironic given that Riley doesn't win his last title without Lebron and Bosh, who assuredly both would've been franchise tagged.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Pat Riley thinks NBA should have "franchise tag"

      Originally posted by ECKrueger View Post
      It is a fact, maybe not with any supporting data, but clearly a lot of big names want to play in big cities. For multi-millionaire, super famous, young athletes, a big city will be a lot more attractive a lot of the time.

      I just don't see the point in changing things to give these guys ridiculous contracts to stay where they're drafted. They're probably still going to leave at some point if you aren't competitive, and I don't know how you will be competitive when you're paying one guy a super max contract. It's a lose-lose in a small market unless you draft well, trade well, sign well, etc. and build a long term culture of winning, or go for broke for a few years.
      My point is that there's no EXTRA incentive for the player to stay beyond loyalty. If I had choice between Miami and Indianapolis and I'm only losing a "few dollars", then I would choose Miami. Now, if we're talking like a 25% paycut if I went to Miami, then I would choose Indianapolis.

      These players are not forced to make tough decisions regarding their future money. Keep in mind that they're millionaires, so the cost of moving and getting a nice house in a good neighbor is not a worry for them.


      Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Pat Riley thinks NBA should have "franchise tag"

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        Without some incentive to keep that guy you managed to draft well, then this is pretty useless.

        When Durant leaves a team that was up 3-1 on the defending champs in the conference finals then it is clear a winning culture with good supporting cast isn't enough.

        If one supermax salary doesn't count against the cap or LT any more than the amount of a regular max then it is pretty affordable for most of the small market teams - the issue is losing the income from the LT payback or losing trade flexibility.
        I don't think there is any fixing it. These superstars are paid pretty well throughout their whole career, eventually the idea of getting a ring will outweigh the idea of getting a truckload of money I think. There's some chicken/egg debate too I guess - do you get a superstar because you have a good supporting cast, or do you get good role players because you have a superstar?

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Pat Riley thinks NBA should have "franchise tag"

          Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
          My point is that there's no EXTRA incentive for the player to stay beyond loyalty. If I had choice between Miami and Indianapolis and I'm only losing a "few dollars", then I would choose Miami. Now, if we're talking like a 25% paycut if I went to Miami, then I would choose Indianapolis.

          These players are not forced to make tough decisions regarding their future money. Keep in mind that they're millionaires, so the cost of moving and getting a nice house in a good neighbor is not a worry for them.
          Even with a 25% difference though, you'd make it back in tax savings and endorsements, plus you'd get to be in Miami when you aren't practicing or playing. I think with the first contract or two, guys will take the money, but I think it will be hard to keep guys in their original cities with just money.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Pat Riley thinks NBA should have "franchise tag"

            Players will always have choice to go after more money or go after a ring, no solution outside of taking away free agency will ever fix that. But the issue is making sure there's actually some significant sacrifice to chose the ring.

            Durant, for example, could have signed a 5yr/$153M max deal with OKC. He could have signed any where else for 4yrs/$114M. 5/153=$30.6M/yr compared to 4/114=$28.5M/yr. That's not that big of a sacrifice.

            And Durant can actually end up making more than the 5/$153M. Over the next 5yrs, assuming he signs another max contract at the end of his new deal, he has the potential of making $162.9M. So Durant didn't even make any monetary sacrifice, all while chasing a ring.

            http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2016/6/2...e-agent-rumors
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Pat Riley thinks NBA should have "franchise tag"

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Players will always have choice to go after more money or go after a ring, no solution outside of taking away free agency will ever fix that. But the issue is making sure there's actually some significant sacrifice to chose the ring.

              Durant, for example, could have signed a 5yr/$153M max deal with OKC. He could have signed any where else for 4yrs/$114M. 5/153=$30.6M/yr compared to 4/114=$28.5M/yr. That's not that big of a sacrifice.

              And Durant can actually end up making more than the 5/$153M. Over the next 5yrs, assuming he signs another max contract at the end of his new deal, he has the potential of making $162.9M. So Durant didn't even make any monetary sacrifice, all while chasing a ring.

              http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2016/6/2...e-agent-rumors
              Thank you. I was trying to make that point, but I think was saying it wrong. When it's said and done, players are still getting paid while being able to chase rings on super teams.

              Some players will forgo money ala David West, but not every player can. Players have to be placed in a situation where they said to themselves, "How bad do I really want this ring/different team over my money?".


              Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Pat Riley thinks NBA should have "franchise tag"

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Players will always have choice to go after more money or go after a ring, no solution outside of taking away free agency will ever fix that. But the issue is making sure there's actually some significant sacrifice to chose the ring.

                Durant, for example, could have signed a 5yr/$153M max deal with OKC. He could have signed any where else for 4yrs/$114M. 5/153=$30.6M/yr compared to 4/114=$28.5M/yr. That's not that big of a sacrifice.

                And Durant can actually end up making more than the 5/$153M. Over the next 5yrs, assuming he signs another max contract at the end of his new deal, he has the potential of making $162.9M. So Durant didn't even make any monetary sacrifice, all while chasing a ring.

                http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2016/6/2...e-agent-rumors
                I get that, but my point is that throwing money at them won't be enough. They won't take away money if you change teams, so the only option would be ridiculously big contracts. At that point, getting 30M from the contender is still a better option than getting 40M or whatever from the team you've been on and not won with. Law of Diminishing Returns and what-not.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Pat Riley thinks NBA should have "franchise tag"

                  How does anyone know if will change anything? But even if it doesn't, nothing is actually lost.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Pat Riley thinks NBA should have "franchise tag"

                    If there was an opportunity for change, I'd push for non-guaranteed contracts for players and no limits to the size of an individual contract within an overall team hard cap, ala the NFL.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Pat Riley thinks NBA should have "franchise tag"

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      How does anyone know if will change anything? But even if it doesn't, nothing is actually lost.
                      I mean what happens when they try this, players still leave, and all the small market teams still get nothing, but have even less money? They still have no superstar, and they threw away more money. I just don't see the point in making a change to contracts for a small chance of making a fundamental change.

                      I'd also prefer to just have salaries built the way the NFL's are. If they are going to try to change something, make a big change.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Pat Riley thinks NBA should have "franchise tag"

                        Superstars leave NFL teams too, so if we're going with the logic that things shouldn't be done because players can still leave, going the NFL route doesn't fix it either.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Pat Riley thinks NBA should have "franchise tag"

                          Originally posted by ECKrueger View Post
                          I mean what happens when they try this, players still leave, and all the small market teams still get nothing, but have even less money? They still have no superstar, and they threw away more money. I just don't see the point in making a change to contracts for a small chance of making a fundamental change.

                          I'd also prefer to just have salaries built the way the NFL's are. If they are going to try to change something, make a big change.
                          If the superstar leaves then they have that money to spend the next year. It's not like they keep having to pay the premium after the player goes to another team.

                          The problem is that the players' association isn't going to go for a big change. The best we as fans of a "have not" team can hope for is something incremental.

                          At some point the players need to realize that if the small teams can no longer draw, sooner or later the big teams are going to saturate their market. If that ends up with the small teams ceasing to get money from attendance, sponsorships, or other BRI due to being some sort of crap minor league (or, worse, folding), it reduces the number of highly paid journeyman positions. It is in the best interests of all but about the top 20 players to have as many competitive teams in the league as possible.
                          BillS

                          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...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Pat Riley thinks NBA should have "franchise tag"

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            Superstars leave NFL teams too, so if we're going with the logic that things shouldn't be done because players can still leave, going the NFL route doesn't fix it either.
                            That was my point though, I don't care to change it - and if NFL teams really want to keep a player, they pay as much as they need to and keep them.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Pat Riley thinks NBA should have "franchise tag"

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              If the superstar leaves then they have that money to spend the next year. It's not like they keep having to pay the premium after the player goes to another team.

                              The problem is that the players' association isn't going to go for a big change. The best we as fans of a "have not" team can hope for is something incremental.

                              At some point the players need to realize that if the small teams can no longer draw, sooner or later the big teams are going to saturate their market. If that ends up with the small teams ceasing to get money from attendance, sponsorships, or other BRI due to being some sort of crap minor league (or, worse, folding), it reduces the number of highly paid journeyman positions. It is in the best interests of all but about the top 20 players to have as many competitive teams in the league as possible.
                              I know, but if I am an owner and I spend 50M instead of 30M on PG for a couple years with these new contracts, and then he leaves anyway, I may say I just wasted 40M extra dollars and still lost him - I am not going into the tax at all.

                              I agree though, nothing will change until the majority of players and/or teams start getting screwed.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Pat Riley thinks NBA should have "franchise tag"

                                I don't see the small market teams being happy with a super max. Let's take Marc Gasol for example. He re-signed with Memphis. But what happens if there's a super max out there that allows the player to get 10 million more? He's going to demand 10 million extra from Memphis in order to re-sign there.

                                That can happen one of two ways. Either Memphis has to include that 10 million as part of the salary cap, in which case their efforts to build a team become very limited because they are also not going to go over the luxury tax. Or that 10 million is not included as part of the cap. But that causes the salary cap to go down because part of the players BRI is getting paid outside the salary cap structure. And if it doesn't, then small market teams who already say they are barely breaking even with revenue sharing suddenly have an extra 10 million dollar payment outside of their normal salaries.

                                The only way it works is if players are significantly more likely to stay with small market teams. Every player who would have stayed anyways the small markets would much rather have the current system. There are benefits and drawbacks, but at the end of the day the small market teams are likely to see the drawbacks as worse than the benefits. And it doesn't help the big markets at all, so they would all vote against it too.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X