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

6 year CBA Extension Approved !!!!!

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

  • 6 year CBA Extension Approved !!!!!

    Owners likely to vote on March 8

    NFL.com wire reports

    GRAPEVINE, Texas (March 7, 2006) -- What is supposed to be the absolutely, positively final meeting to solve the NFL's labor problems began with owners trying to decide whether to accept the union's latest proposal.

    A decision on whether to extend the collective bargaining agreement was unlikely to come down until March 8, close to the latest deadline of 8 p.m. ET. It'll take that long for the owners to resolve their differences over internal revenue sharing, the most divisive issue facing them. If they don't get that straight, a deal in unlikely.

    Most of the first three hours of the meeting was spent simply listening to commissioner Paul Tagliabue go through details of the union's proposal.


    "It's going to be a while. Quite a while," said Buffalo's Ralph Wilson, one of leading proponents of revenue sharing.

    But there seemed to be some hope they would reach an agreement that would extend the contract that runs out after the 2007 season. It came from Dallas owner Jerry Jones, who is 180 degrees away from Wilson on sharing, but suggested for the first time that he might have to give in a bit to let the owners solve their dispute.

    "We want to play football," Jones said as he entered the meeting. "We have an obligation to everyone, particularly our fans.

    "My gut is we're going to come up with something, but it's still up in the air. It's going to be long and drawn out and tough."

    Finding a solution now is critical because free agency, pushed back twice, is scheduled to start Thursday with a $94.5 million salary cap that could go as much as $10 million higher if there is an extension. And although both sides have agreed there will be no more extensions there would be one more if there is an agreement -- until 12:01 a.m. on March 10 to give teams time to get everything in order.

    If there is no settlement, then 2007 would have no salary cap and create the kind of uncertainty that neither side really wants.

    Revenue sharing hasn't been dealt with during the negotiations, even though Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, has contended all along that no agreement can be reached without it.

    If nothing else, the tone of the owners was far different at this meeting than March 2 in New York, when they took only 57 minutes to reject the union proposal. Later that day, they extended the deadline for free agency for three days and extended it again March 5 just as it seemed talks had broken off.

    That led to this meeting and the discussion over revenue sharing, which will be necessary to meet the union's proposal for slightly under 60 percent of the league's total revenues.

    Low-revenue teams such as Buffalo, Cincinnati and Indianapolis say high-revenue teams -- Dallas, Washington and Philadelphia, for instance -- should contribute proportionately to the player pool because they can earn far more in non-football income such as advertising and local radio rights. Those high-revenue teams might contribute only 10 percent of their outside money compared with 50 percent or more for low-revenue teams.

    If there is no agreement, it would leave a number of free agents commanding far less than they thought they could get and a glutted market filled with veterans who could be cut to provide cap room.


    AP NEWS
    The Associated Press News Service

    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9290952

    Why Not Us ?


  • #2
    Re: Owners likely to vote on March 8

    So no news till tomorrow, eh....
    Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Owners likely to vote on March 8

      I'm sure they will have another extension.

      I don't know if I could stand to watch football again if there was no salary cap.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Owners likely to vote on March 8

        Originally posted by Moses
        I'm sure they will have another extension.

        I don't know if I could stand to watch football again if there was no salary cap.
        No, it's over after today either way.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Owners likely to vote on March 8

          Originally posted by btowncolt
          No, it's over after today either way.
          That was a half-joke type of comment but I didn't know it was going to be decided today for sure. Man this isn't looking good for NFL fans and players. I wish they could just agree on something for now to insure that there will be a salary cap after this next year.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Owners likely to vote on March 8



            Another deadline delayed in NFL marathon labor talks

            By DAVE GOLDBERG, AP Football Writer
            March 8, 2006

            AP - Mar 8, 5:45 pm EST
            More Photos


            GRAPEVINE, Texas (AP) -- The NFL delayed another deadline on Wednesday.

            A little more than two hours before the latest deadline to accept or turn down the NFL Players Association's offer to extend the labor agreement, the owners pushed it back again. This time they extended the deadline for teams to get under the salary cap by two hours, from 9 p.m. EST until 11 p.m.
            With that, the owners kept talking as they tried to resolve the sticky issue of expanded revenue sharing that has tied them up for two years. The additional money it would generate is considered the best way the owners can accede to the union's request for just less than 60 percent of the league's total revenues.

            NFL spokesman Joe Browne, in announcing the deadline change, said it was made to give additional time to reach agreement on the complicated plans on which they are working. The 8 p.m. EST deadline for informing the union whether the owners accept or reject their proposal stands, although there was some question whether the league might be switching time zones -- Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the players union was in Hawaii, where 8 p.m. would be 1 a.m EST.

            The owners' marathon meeting started Tuesday and ended with labor peace nowhere in sight.

            Earlier Wednesday, there was still clearly no consensus.


            Jerry Jones of Dallas, the leader of the group opposing revenue sharing, said he was dismayed by developments. Indianapolis' Jim Irsay, one of the spokesmen for the low-revenue teams that want help from the richer teams suggested the league needed a consensus builder like the late Wellington Mara of the New York Giants, the last of the NFL's founding generation, who died last October.

            "We need the ghost of St. Wellington to appear with some of the forefathers," Irsay said.

            Despite the latest delay, free agency, twice delayed, is still scheduled to begin Thursday at 12:01 a.m. EST if owners turn down the union's offer. If they approve it, free agency will start Friday.

            Meanwhile, there was as much lobbying going on as discussion.

            At the lunch break, Mara's son John, along with Jerry Richardson of Carolina and Pat Bowlen of Denver met with commissioner Paul Tagliabue in an attempt to find a way to build a consensus. All three are considered "league" men, owners who will do what they think is best for the league, something Tagliabue urged during Tuesday's session.

            They seemed to be aligned, somewhat surprisingly, with Oakland's Al Davis, a maverick with a long history of court fights with the league. "I love my country and I love my league," Davis said repeatedly.



            Updated on Wednesday, Mar 8, 2006 6:51 pm EST

            http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_yl...v=ap&type=lgns

            Why Not Us ?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Vote Deadline Delayed until 11pm(EST)

              Just get a deal.......

              Just get a deal.......
              Super Bowl XLI Champions
              2000 Eastern Conference Champions




              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Vote Deadline Delayed until 11pm(EST)

                They just broke in on ESPN during the Rutgers/Seton Hall game... The owners approved the union's proposal. They said that they will have more details on Sportscenter after the game. I couldn't even find a link for this yet.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Vote Deadline Delayed until 11pm(EST)

                  Originally posted by Lnjcarp
                  They just broke in on ESPN during the Rutgers/Seton Hall game... The owners approved the union's proposal. They said that they will have more details on Sportscenter after the game. I couldn't even find a link for this yet.

                  http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/index?...lid=gn_NFL_NFL

                  Deal Approved



                  After pushing back various deadlines and getting the owners together for two days in Dallas, labor peace has been reached. The owners have accepted the NFLPA's offer for a CBA extension

                  Updated: March 8, 2006, 8:42 PM ET
                  NFL owners approve six-year CBA extension

                  ESPN.com news services


                  NFL owners have approved a six-year extension of the collective bargaining agreement by a vote of 30-2 Wednesday night.

                  Buffalo and Cincinnati were the two teams to vote against the proposal, according to ESPN's Chris Mortensen.

                  The agreement concludes weeks of contentious negotiations between the league and the NFL Players' Association. The new extension was expected to add $10 million to the 2006 salary cap, pushing it over $104 million. Without a CBA extension, the 2006 cap would have been $94.5 million.

                  ESPNEWS reports that Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones briefly left the owners' meeting shortly before the 8 p.m. deadline the owners set to decide on the extension and told the waiting throng of reporters that owners were "getting close, getting close," but that it would take about "30 minutes" before anything was known. Jones did not offer any other details.

                  Earlier Wednesday, the NFL moved back the waiver deadline for teams to get below the salary cap from 9 p.m. ET Wednesday to 11 p.m. ET.


                  The agreement concludes weeks of contentious negotiations between the league and the NFL Players' Association. The new extension was expected to add $10 million to the 2006 salary cap, pushing it over $104 million. Without a CBA extension, the 2006 cap would have been $94.5 million.

                  ESPNEWS reports that Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones briefly left the owners' meeting shortly before the 8 p.m. deadline the owners set to decide on the extension and told the waiting throng of reporters that owners were "getting close, getting close," but that it would take about "30 minutes" before anything was known. Jones did not offer any other details.

                  Earlier Wednesday, the NFL moved back the waiver deadline for teams to get below the salary cap from 9 p.m. ET Wednesday to 11 p.m. ET.
                  The agreement concludes weeks of contentious negotiations between the league and the NFL Players' Association. The new extension was expected to add $10 million to the 2006 salary cap, pushing it over $104 million. Without a CBA extension, the 2006 cap would have been $94.5 million.

                  ESPNEWS reports that Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones briefly left the owners' meeting shortly before the 8 p.m. deadline the owners set to decide on the extension and told the waiting throng of reporters that owners were "getting close, getting close," but that it would take about "30 minutes" before anything was known. Jones did not offer any other details.

                  Earlier Wednesday, the NFL moved back the waiver deadline for teams to get below the salary cap from 9 p.m. ET Wednesday to 11 p.m. ET.
                  The agreement concludes weeks of contentious negotiations between the league and the NFL Players' Association. The new extension was expected to add $10 million to the 2006 salary cap, pushing it over $104 million. Without a CBA extension, the 2006 cap would have been $94.5 million.

                  ESPNEWS reports that Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones briefly left the owners' meeting shortly before the 8 p.m. deadline the owners set to decide on the extension and told the waiting throng of reporters that owners were "getting close, getting close," but that it would take about "30 minutes" before anything was known. Jones did not offer any other details.

                  Earlier Wednesday, the NFL moved back the waiver deadline for teams to get below the salary cap from 9 p.m. ET Wednesday to 11 p.m. ET.

                  Why Not Us ?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 6 year CBA Extension Approved !!!!!

                    Good. Now with a cap closer to 105 mil, maybe we can sign Edge back.
                    Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 6 year CBA Extension Approved !!!!!

                      Awesome, now we are sure the first year of Lucas Oil Stadium, we will have football.

                      Super Bowl XLI Champions
                      2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 6 year CBA Extension Approved !!!!!

                        Why does it have to be my team that voted agaisnt it?, Damn Ralph Wilson

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 6 year CBA Extension Approved !!!!!

                          So how much are we under the cap now?
                          Or do we even know?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 6 year CBA Extension Approved !!!!!

                            There should be a 105 mill. cap now. I think the Colts are going to be able to retain Edge now. Good news for all marquee free agents.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 6 year CBA Extension Approved !!!!!

                              I think we were about 9 mil over before we restructured, and we saved about that much? So maybe about 10 below? I could be wrong...
                              Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X