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

  • #16
    Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

    Originally posted by Kegboy
    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
    As an SU fan, I don't care. And I think quite a few HS players will find they aren't quite as NBA-ready as they thought, especially big men.
    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

      Originally posted by Dr Huxtable
      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

      Football is the only game with an age limit but football is a much more physical sport. There is no age limit to hockey, baseball, etc.

      I disagree that an age limit would help. Look at all the Superstars who have developed to players they are today who came from High School (J.O., McGrady, Kobe, Garnett, etc etc etc.). If they went to college, they could have had injuries that effected their NBA game resulting them in being underpaid or even result in career ending injuries. These high school ballers, many of them came from the hood and have played ball since they were young to get out of the ghetto. Why punish them with imposing an age limit?

      That is why I say it may be a racial or cultural thing and I agree with Jermaine's sentiment. It may not be politically correct to use the "race card" but it sometimes is the truth. Why all this pressure for an age limit? It's a big issue and the Players Union shouldn't concede.

      Comment


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

        The age limit rule is stupid. But, frankly, I could care less, as long as we have a season this year.
        Super Bowl XLI Champions
        2000 Eastern Conference Champions




        Comment


        • #19
          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.
          Nah, it comes down to something that trumps both, money.

          Owners don't like paying unproven high schoolers. If most were like King James you wouldn't hear a peep from them.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

            Let me get this straight....

            NBA vets with a few good years left (mostly black) are going to be able to keep their jobs one more year over raw rookies who aren't as good but will be in the future (mostly black).

            Exactly what does race have to do with this?

            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


            • #21
              Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

              Originally posted by Kstat
              Let me get this straight....

              NBA vets with a few good years left (mostly black) are going to be able to keep their jobs one more year over raw rookies who aren't as good but will be in the future (mostly black).

              Exactly what does race have to do with this?
              That's exactly what I want to know. Why does anyone buy into this other than the fact a black man brought it up? I haven't yet heard from JO, or anyone who agrees with him, any evidence or explanation for why it's a racial matter.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                i think it probably has more to do with the fact that only one white high schooler has ever been taken....all the others are blacks....though the league is more black than white, i think the last number i saw was high seventy percentile or something.....so this rule would seem to affect and inordinate amount of blacks....

                this is typically the reason given when saying it is racially imbalanced....i think its more about it having a racial impact than it being racially motivated....there is a difference...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                  Originally posted by wooolus
                  Can someone give me an explination for this? Thanks

                  • 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.


                  An "escrow" account simply means an account held by a third party. So every year the players put 10% of their salaries (like a tithe) into an account held by someone other than the NBA owners and the players. So someone like a lawyer, accounting firm, bank, or some entity like that. At the end of the year they compare the total amount of all players' salaries to the "Basketball Related Income" (BRI), which is a certain portion of the money generated by the league (the BRI includes things like ticket sales, television contracts, and league sponsorships, but I am not sure of exactly what all gets included). If 57% of the BRI (so a little more than half of all the money from ticket sales, the T.V. contracts, and the sponsors) is less than the total sum of all the players' salaries, then the owners get the money in the escrow account (the 10% of the players' salaries). If the 57% of the BRI is more than the players' salaries, then the players get the money in the escrow account (they get their 10% back). (Its basically an end of the year refund for the owners in case they payed the players' too much money).

                  Currently, if the owners get the escrow account (if 57% of the BRI is lower than the sum of all players' salaries) the money in that escrow account is spread out to only those teams that did not go over the luxury tax limit. Under the new agreement, the money would be spread evenly to all teams regardless of what your team spent on player contracts (which is what determines if it went over the luxury tax limit). So the new contract makes it so teams would no longer get rewarded for not spending money on players (since all teams get the escrow money and not just the cheap ones). Also, the league would slowely lower the amount of money the players put into the escrow account from 10% to 8% so the players would be losing less of their money.

                  --------------end of explination -------- begining of comment------

                  Of course that whole, "the cheap teams won't get rewarded anymore" is a certain point of view. If I remember correctly, the escrow account going to the teams that didn't break the luxury tax was justified by the reasoning that teams that COULD break the luxury tax were "generally" larger market teams and so the 10% return of player salaries was a revenue equity device. Of course it was definately abused be some larger market teams *cough* Clippers *cough* and I guess its revenue equitability is either outweighted by those who abuse it or it isn't much needed, or else there would be more of a fight to hold on to the system (or the less well off teams were out voted).

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                    Originally posted by foretaz
                    i think it probably has more to do with the fact that only one white high schooler has ever been taken....all the others are blacks....though the league is more black than white, i think the last number i saw was high seventy percentile or something.....so this rule would seem to affect and inordinate amount of blacks....

                    this is typically the reason given when saying it is racially imbalanced....i think its more about it having a racial impact than it being racially motivated....there is a difference...
                    ....and we're conveniently overlooking all the young white euros that have been taken?

                    And they're saving jobs as much as they're denying them.

                    Frankly, I think a vet who's given 15 years to the NBA and still has a little left, deserves his job over a young kid that won't be able to cut it ANYWAY until he turns 20 or 21.

                    %95 of 18 year olds in the NBA don't belong there. Period. I'm willing to be the number of vets that lost their jobs were easily better than the players they were let go for.

                    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


                    • #25
                      Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                      Intresting Jermaine O'Neal was actually 17 when drafted. So if the rule had been in effect back then he would have had to wait 2 years before entering the league.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                        Originally posted by diamonddave00
                        Intresting Jermaine O'Neal was actually 17 when drafted. So if the rule had been in effect back then he would have had to wait 2 years before entering the league.

                        And I think we can all agree he didn't belong in the NBA till he hit 21.

                        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


                        • #27
                          Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                          So, Stern gets to retain ALL of his power? Joy.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                            Originally posted by foretaz
                            i think it probably has more to do with the fact that only one white high schooler has ever been taken....all the others are blacks....though the league is more black than white, i think the last number i saw was high seventy percentile or something.....so this rule would seem to affect and inordinate amount of blacks....

                            this is typically the reason given when saying it is racially imbalanced....i think its more about it having a racial impact than it being racially motivated....there is a difference...
                            Then in that case, I think what the people crying out about it need to realize is, instead of drafting 7-9 black 18 year olds to every 1 white 18 year old, this just means now 7-9 black 19 year olds will be drafted to every 1 white 19 year old.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                              Originally posted by Shade
                              So, Stern gets to retain ALL of his power? Joy.
                              Why would you think that he wouldn't? %98 of NBA teams are thrilled with the guy.

                              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


                              • #30
                                Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                                it kinda comes back to the real reason all this started way back in the 70s....

                                they were called hardship cases...

                                if u have a young black athlete that cant qualify scholastically and therefore is ineligible, and his background, lets say is ghetto project oriented....then it becomes a bit of a struggle to tell that young man he cant play basketball in the nba....

                                now granted....for most all athletes....they still have options....they can go play overseas or a cba type league....

                                however this is where the owners are their own worst enemy...and really are to blame....if this kid is an amazing talent....like a kg or lebron....then they want him.....and its tough to say we just take him and not allow all the others....and by allowing all the others they have now created a whole can of worms that they have trouble swallowing....they end up paying alot of money to a bunch of kids that they otherwise wouldnt....

                                thats why there was even talk of making the age limit only pertaining to the draft outside the lottery....though it seems it might have gotten nixed in this latest proposal....which is probably for the better....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X