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

The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

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

  • The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

    .......but apparently, 19 year olds are still eligibele

    NBA close to labor peace; age limit to be 19

    By Chad Ford

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2091116

    The NBA and its players' association are close to agreeing on a new collective bargaining agreement that would institute a 19-year-old age limit, reduce contract lengths and raise the salary cap, sources close to both negotiating committees told ESPN.com on Monday night.

    The potential agreement would run for six years and would allow the two sides to avoid a lockout on July 1.

    NBA spokesperson Tim Frank told ESPN that the two negotiating committees were scheduled to meet again on Tuesday morning in New York.

    A source close to the NBA negotiating committee and a source close to the players' association negotiation committee claim that all of the major issues between the two sides have been agreed to in principle, and the purpose of Tuesday's meeting is to work out some of the finer points of the agreement that weren't addressed during a lengthy breakthrough negotiation session Friday. Both sources asserted that none of the issues left on the table were major sticking points. If those issues can be worked out in a timely fashion, the two sides would be ready to announce a deal.

    Union spokesperson Dan Wasserman declined comment on the story.

    If a new agreement is reached soon, the players would have the opportunity to ratify it during a summer meeting on June 28th. It might take several more weeks for the final agreement to get drafted, possibly delaying the start of the free agent period scheduled to start July 1st.

    The owners will have won several key concessions from the players, if the current proposal is agreed to, according to sources on both sides.

    • A 19-year-old age limit would be implemented. Players who are not 19 by draft night would be ineligible to declare. Under current rules, American players are eligible for the draft the year their high school class graduates. Foreign players must be 18 by draft night. The new proposed age limit would bar most, but not all (Amare Stoudemire was already 19 when he was drafted), high school players from entering the draft.

    • Contract lengths would be reduced one year. Currently, players can sign a fully guaranteed contract for a maximum of seven years if they re-sign with their current team. Players signing with a new team in free agency can sign a six-year deal. Under the new proposal, maxiumum contract lengths would shorten to five years for players signing with new teams and six years for players re-signing with their current team.

    • Raises in contracts would be reduced. Under the current CBA, players are allowed maximum raises of 12.5 percent per year if they re-sign with their current team and 10 percent if they sign with a different team in free agency. Under the new proposal, raises would be reduced to 10 percent if a player re-signs with his current team and 8 percent if they sign with a different team in free agency.

    • Teams would pick up an extra option year on rookie contracts. Currently, first-round picks are tied into a league salary scale. When a first-round pick signs a contract, the first three years are guaranteed, with a team option for the fourth year. Players are paid a set amount based on where they were selected in the draft. Under the new proposed rules, first-round picks would get the first two years of their contract guaranteed. The third and fourth years of the contract would be team options.

    In return the owners would make the following concessions to the players if the current proposal is ratified:

    • Total player salaries would be guaranteed. The proposed agreement guarantees that players receive a minimum of 57 percent of basketball-related income (BRI) in the form of salaries each year.

    • Salary cap would rise. The current CBA bases the salary cap on basketball-related income (BRI). The cap is set at 48 percent of BRI. Last year, that came to $43.87 million. According to sources, the owners would agree to increase that percentage to 51 percent, in effect raising the salary cap. Sources say the cap would, in that case, rise to between $47 and $50 million next season.

    • Escrow would be reduced and distribution of escrow moneys modified. Currently, players must pay 10 percent of their salaries into an escrow account each season. If, at season's end, the total amount of player salaries exceeds 57 percent of the league's total basketball-related income, that money goes to the owners whose teams stay below the luxury-tax threshold (and a few that fall within a certain "cliff threshold"). If it doesn't exceed 57 percent, the players get their money back. Under the proposed agreement, that number would be slowly fazed down to 8 percent by the end of the agreement.

    There is potentially another significant development in this area. Under current rules, the NBA has sole discretion over the use of the escrow money. Currently, it redistributes the cash (and luxury tax revenues) to teams that are under the luxury tax threshold. In essence, Donald Sterling gets a bonus for being cheap. Under the new proposed agreement, distribution rules would be changed so that luxury tax revenues would now be distributed equally among all 30 teams.

    • No super luxury tax. Owners had been pushing for a "super tax" for teams who exceed the salary cap by more than a certain percentage. They would be penalized $2 for every dollar they were over the tax threshold. However, the owners dropped their demand for a super tax under the newest proposal.

    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

  • #2
    Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

    Ok, so higher salary cap, and shorter/cheaper max contracts. Sounds like a good deal.

    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: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

      Looks pretty good.

      Now, let's get hockey back on track...Stevie Y can't go out like this, eh Kstat?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

          Originally posted by rcarey
          Looks pretty good.

          Now, let's get hockey back on track...Stevie Y can't go out like this, eh Kstat?
          I hope Steve Yzerman gets a "farewell" season. He's the most loved current athlete in Detroit, bar none.

          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: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

            No real changes

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

              • Escrow would be reduced and distribution of escrow moneys modified. Currently, players must pay 10 percent of their salaries into an escrow account each season. If, at season's end, the total amount of player salaries exceeds 57 percent of the league's total basketball-related income, that money goes to the owners whose teams stay below the luxury-tax threshold (and a few that fall within a certain "cliff threshold"). If it doesn't exceed 57 percent, the players get their money back. Under the proposed agreement, that number would be slowly fazed down to 8 percent by the end of the agreement.
              Can someone give me an explination for this? Thanks

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                Originally posted by Kstat
                I hope Steve Yzerman gets a "farewell" season. He's the most loved current athlete in Detroit, bar none.
                I know...God knows he deserves it. I'm a Leafs fan, but grew up wearing the #19 idolizing Stevie. It doesn't matter what NHL team you follow - everyone loves the guy. All of my Wings friends have never watched a game where Yzerman didn't dawn the red and white, with the "C" on his chest.

                I like to compare the whole situation to Reggie's this year...and I really hope Steve gets the same kind of farewell that Reggie did.

                As for the new agreement, I like the reduced contract signings. I don't see such a big deal with the age limit - kids are still going to come out of high-school at age 19.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                  Damn. I was really hoping for 5/4, not 6/5. But, I shouldn't complain. 4/3 would have been a nightmare.

                  The age limit is a farce. It's gonna really hurt college basketball. Better to have it the way it is now than a constant revolving door of one-year players. If only Stern had gotten serious about the NBDL 5 years ago, none of this would be necessary. :shakehead
                  Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                    Ford is only talking about the "give and take" of the new agreement, not all the potential changes, right? The rules involving how trades can be made might still be different?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                      What I don't understand is, if they're guaranteeing the 57%, then what's the point of the escrow. Unless they're moving the number, players are always gonna lose that money.
                      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                        I think this sounds...increase of the cap and lowering of the years is definitely a good thing.
                        Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                          Why should players have to be 19? Why can't High School ballers come to the NBA but can go to war? I find this ridiculous. How come no other sports have such things?

                          Jermaine O'Neal said it, it may have to do with race and culture.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                            Originally posted by PacerSoul
                            Why should players have to be 19? Why can't High School ballers come to the NBA but can go to war? I find this ridiculous. How come no other sports have such things?
                            People "can't" drink until 21, either. Go figure. Of course, this isn't the Government; the NBA can do whatever the hell it wants.

                            Jermaine O'Neal said it, it may have to do with race and culture.
                            I didn't agree with JO then (to put it mildly), and I still don't. He must know something most of us don't, otherwise I think it's laughable.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                              Originally posted by PacerSoul
                              Why should players have to be 19? Why can't High School ballers come to the NBA but can go to war? I find this ridiculous. How come no other sports have such things?

                              Jermaine O'Neal said it, it may have to do with race and culture.
                              It's one of the few things I agree with David Stern on. Teams that pick high school players that aren't ready for the NBA game yet take up a roster spot that a veteran player who is established in the league could use, forcing them to retire sometimes. It's not fair to the veteran or the team/fans. An age limit would help those players not quite ready for the NBA game if they went to college and developed.

                              Also, if I'm not mistaken the NFL has some sort of age limit.

                              *edit* horrible grammar/typing

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X