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

Cavs owner Gordon Gund explains the Boozer fiasco & I believe him

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

  • Cavs owner Gordon Gund explains the Boozer fiasco & I believe him

    http://www.nba.com/cavaliers/news/gu...er_040714.html


    A Letter from Gordon Gund Regarding Carlos Boozer


    July 14th, 2004

    To: Cavaliers Fans
    From: Gordon Gund

    I know last week’s developments with respect to Carlos Boozer are a source of extreme disappointment for you. I want to assure you that I feel exactly the same way. Like you, I believed in Carlos.

    Several days have now gone by. This has helped me to gain perspective. I hope this letter will do the same for you.

    First, Jim Paxson has taken a tremendous amount of criticism in the media for what happened. As the team owner, I made the decision not to pick up the option on Carlos’ contract. Any criticism should be directed to me, not to Jim Paxson. I want to be very clear that any fault is mine.

    Up until late last week when the trust was broken, I believed in Carlos Boozer, the player, and Carlos Boozer, the person. That is why I tried to do what he said he wanted. We tried to do right by him, by the team and by you in trusting in his repeated insistence that if we showed him respect, he would show respect to us.

    Carlos and his agent first approached us in December of 2003, stating his desire for financial security as well as his desire to remain in Cleveland and be a key part of the future of this franchise. He and his agent made it very clear that if we respected them, and provided the security he was looking to gain, he would respect us. Given his record on the court, with the franchise, and in the community, we had every reason to believe his commitment.

    Over the course of several months, we had multiple meetings that involved Carlos, his wife and his agent. In our most recent meeting on June 30, Jim Paxson and I told Carlos we had two options. He could play this year on his existing contract and test the market for free agency next year, or we could elect not to exercise the option if we had the understanding with him that as soon as legally possible he would negotiate a contract with us for the maximum we could pay him under league rules.

    I told him that as we could not have an agreement at that time given the NBA's Collective Bargaining Agreement, we would have to trust one another’s intentions. I said I define trust as his intention to stay in Cleveland and enter into a long term contract with us as soon as possible under the league rules. In that meeting, we were clear with him that he could make more money in the open market a year from now than we could pay him by redoing his contract this year. I told him he needed to understand that and we did not want him to later think we had taken advantage of him. Jim told him, “There are at least seven teams that have cap space right now who will want to pay you more than we can now. We don’t want to lose you. Why would we not pick up the option?” Carlos said “Because we'd like long term security and we want to stay in Cleveland.” Carlos went on to say that he was happy to be a Cavalier and never indicated any concern with his role on the team or his relationship with Coach Silas.

    Carlos, his wife and his agent – all of whom were in that room -- knew what our maximum ability would be to pay him. Both Carlos and his wife responded that they wanted financial security now and therefore were anxious to pursue the second option of entering into a long term contract with us as soon as possible and that they would live with any consequences from this decision.

    Carlos’ agent then said he wanted to go to another room to talk with his client and his wife alone which they did. When they returned, his agent said he had again explained everything to them so that they understood everything involved and said that their thinking had not changed.

    Jim Paxson then told him, “We'd like to begin, as soon as permissible, to negotiate an agreement that we can sign on July 14th.” Carlos responded, “That’s exactly what I want. I want to get this done as quickly as we can.”

    Over time Carlos had told Jim and me repeatedly, “If you show respect for me, I will show respect for you.” So, in the June 30 meeting, I reminded him of that and said, “We are all counting on what you said in earlier meetings and again today.” He responded, “That’s right and you can trust me on that.” I asked if we could all trust each other? Carlos, his wife and agent each responded “Yes.” At that point, believing so strongly in Carlos, I said we would not pick up his option. Our intent, as soon as we could do so, was to re-do his contract. The quotes you saw in the media July 1 about his desire to remain here were entirely consistent with what he told us.

    In the final analysis, I decided to trust Carlos and show him the respect he asked for. He did not show that trust and respect in return. That’s what happened. I wanted you to hear it directly from me. The decision was mine and I take full responsibility.

    We currently have no intention of matching Utah's offer to Carlos. In order to match it, and within the restrictions of the NBA's Collective Bargaining Agreement, we would need to make player personnel moves of such a magnitude that it would have significant negative impact on our team moving forward. We are continuing to look at every possible option that will allow us to improve our team and continue to build on the tremendous momentum we have experienced in recent years. More than ever, we are committed to bringing a championship to this city. Thank you for your continued support of the Cleveland Cavaliers.

    Gordon Gund





    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

  • #2
    Re: Cavs owner Gordon Gund explains the Boozer fiasco & I believe him

    Oh, P.S. we promised Carlos if some how we obtained Al Harrington like the rumors were circulating there would be no competition for his job.

    Gordon Gund

    You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Cavs owner Gordon Gund explains the Boozer fiasco & I believe him

      I posted this a few days ago, but it was lost at the end of another thread, so apologies if you've already read it.

      I still say that there is no way that Cleveland would decline his paltry $700k option unless they were verrrry sure that they had iron-clad commitment from him.

      The Cleveland offer was a lowball offer, but it did provide security. If Boozer had a bad injury or a down year his value not be what it now (sky high).

      Even if he had a great year he would still have made only $700k for this year and then if he had gotten the same offer it would have averaged out to $55 mil over the next 5 years.

      ------------------------------------------

      So his options were basically:

      1) Play out the year at $700k.

      Best case scenario he plays great and gets close to the max ($10-$12 mil) Total for six years $50 - $60 mil

      Worst case scenario, he get injured or his play tails off, or he gets in a motorcycle accident. Maybe the market is slow or a lot of free agents are available. Over the next five years he gets $5 - $8 mil. Total for six years is $25 - $40 million.

      2) Have Cleveland decline the option, sign him to the MLE for 6 years. Total for six years is $42 mil.

      Makes sense because his value is high right now, the contract is guaranteed and the money starts coming in this year and not next year.

      3) The best of both worlds. Get the security of signing a contract now when stock is high. Wipe off that $700k year for free. Shop youself to the highest bidder when there are a few teams under the cap with money to burn. So he gets the year erased and the payday. Total for 6 years is $68 mil

      -----------------------------------------

      Cleveland screwed up. Maybe they thought that he would be too expensive next year, maybe they were greedy, maybe they were trying to do him a favor.

      The problem is that when they let him become a free agent they could not offer him more than the MLE. They had locked themselves into a 6 year $42 mil offer the second they declined his option. If they had made him play out his remaining year they could have offered him the moon.

      Either way I firmly believe they had a verbal commitment, and unfortunately for them, that is not binding.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Cavs owner Gordon Gund explains the Boozer fiasco & I believe him

        If Boozer wouldnt have taken the 68 million. There would be a thread about his stupidity. 42mil or 68 mil. No matter how bad he looks like Grant said no legal bind, therefore he is entitled to ga back on anything he says. The least he could do is give a verbal apology.


        2006 WORLD CHAMPION INDIANAPOLIS COLTS

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Cavs owner Gordon Gund explains the Boozer fiasco & I believe him

          My heart is not going to cry for Boozer or Gund. BigMac and I kind of discussed this at the party. Some of the behind the scenes stuff with players and their agents/handlers and management is unbelieveable. That's why Boozer has an agent and his posse to handle the cash/bills and as Grant has pointed out that's why the Cavs have their people to low ball. Let me out of here I feel dirty now
          You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Cavs owner Gordon Gund explains the Boozer fiasco & I believe him

            Am I the only one that wonders why his wife was at the negotiating table?

            -Bball
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Cavs owner Gordon Gund explains the Boozer fiasco & I believe him

              Originally posted by Bball
              Am I the only one that wonders why his wife was at the negotiating table?

              -Bball

              Do you mean that your wife is not with you when you go on a job interview or when you negotiate a new salary.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Cavs owner Gordon Gund explains the Boozer fiasco & I believe him

                Originally posted by Bball
                Am I the only one that wonders why his wife was at the negotiating table?

                -Bball
                I can only guess you're not married bball otherwise you wouldn't be asking that question.

                You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Cavs owner Gordon Gund explains the Boozer fiasco & I believe him

                  Hmm.... I wonder if this is going to be Doug Christie's heir apparent.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Cavs owner Gordon Gund explains the Boozer fiasco & I believe him

                    I actually got married for negotiation purposes. I think it rattles your employer seeing a couple walking hand in hand into his office.
                    "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                    "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X