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

Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

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

  • #16
    Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
    Players. I'll always be pro-labor.
    Even win the pro-labor side is obviously wrong?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
      Even win the pro-labor side is obviously wrong?
      I don't think the players are obviously wrong in this situation. They need to make a few concessions (shorter contracts, ability for teams to escape albatross contracts) but some of the stuff I'm hearing is absurd. Non-guaranteed contracts and a hard cap aren't good for the league.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

        Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
        Non-guaranteed contracts and a hard cap aren't good for the league.
        Could you elaborate on why? Not saying you're wrong, just the only view that I've really seen is that contracts shouldn't be guaranteed (to avoid things like the contract hell we've been in since 07) and that a hard cap would be beneficial (to somewhat level the playing field). I'd be interested to hear why you're pro-guaranteed contracts and soft caps.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

          Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
          Players. I'll always be pro-labor.
          Please, we're not talking about the steel union here.

          But I'm definitely on the side of the players for the most part in the NFL.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

            Originally posted by idioteque View Post
            Please, we're not talking about the steel union here.

            But I'm definitely on the side of the players for the most part in the NFL.
            Doesn't matter if it's steel, basketball or teaching, I support the people who do the work.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

              Originally posted by smj887 View Post
              Could you elaborate on why? Not saying you're wrong, just the only view that I've really seen is that contracts shouldn't be guaranteed (to avoid things like the contract hell we've been in since 07) and that a hard cap would be beneficial (to somewhat level the playing field). I'd be interested to hear why you're pro-guaranteed contracts and soft caps.
              Guaranteed contracts are just fair. NFL teams use players until they're broken then toss them aside. Aside from that, I don't like the idea of NBA players constantly playing not to get cut.

              As for leveling the playing field, I don't think the NBA will ever be level. There are only a certain number of game changing players in the league who will dominate the league at a certain time, hard cap or not.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

                Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                Guaranteed contracts are just fair. NFL teams use players until they're broken then toss them aside. Aside from that, I don't like the idea of NBA players constantly playing not to get cut.

                As for leveling the playing field, I don't think the NBA will ever be level. There are only a certain number of game changing players in the league who will dominate the league at a certain time, hard cap or not.
                It's true that players in the NFL get tossed aside if they cannot continue performing. But what the hell? Every corporation in America does the same. You can't or won't perform and you need to look for another job. What you overlook is that most players in either league, at least the smart ones, carry insurance policies that protect them against career-ending injuries.

                It's also true that there are onlyh a handful of true, elite difference makers in the NBA at any one time. A new CBA with that is still free to pay huge salaries to individual players and that has a much lower hard cap will reduce the likelihood of multiple superstars being on the same team. And, with that in place, the league would achieve as much parity as is possible... certainly much more than under the current CBA allows.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

                  Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                  I don't think the players are obviously wrong in this situation. They need to make a few concessions (shorter contracts, ability for teams to escape albatross contracts) but some of the stuff I'm hearing is absurd. Non-guaranteed contracts and a hard cap aren't good for the league.
                  This isn't an NBA issue I am talking about. I'm just talking about in general. What you said is that you support the labor side no matter what, but what if what the labor side wants is just wrong and would ultimately cost them their jobs because they no longer work for a company that can compete.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

                    Ideally I'd like to see player salaries come down to reasonable levels that can be supported at the gate and w/tv revenue, merchandising, etc.... and I'd like to see owner profits have nothing to do with any taxpayer dollars what-so-ever. The business model shouldn't rely on taxpayer support to survive in any city and in fact should be barred from it.

                    A business with so many people making huge sums of money shouldn't need any type of taxpayer support. This isn't saving basketball for our culture because it can't generate enough money on its own to survive in the free market.

                    There's nothing 'fair' about guaranteed contracts. Fair would imply fair to both sides. If you can at any point decide to give half-*** effort at your job and are contractually bound to still be paid for X amount of years, most likely even receiving raises in those years, and especially at the level NBA contracts pay, then there is nothing 'fair' about that. Not to the person writing the check.

                    I do agree if you are on a roster at a certain point each off season then your upcoming season $$$ should be guaranteed, but nothing past that. You either continue to earn your contract or you get replaced by someone that will.
                    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


                    • #25
                      Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

                      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                      This isn't an NBA issue I am talking about. I'm just talking about in general. What you said is that you support the labor side no matter what, but what if what the labor side wants is just wrong and would ultimately cost them their jobs because they no longer work for a company that can compete.
                      Some people unquestionably support labor under the belief the market and thus negotiations will ultimately decide something that is fair to both parties.

                      Ideally that might be true, but a lot of things have been negotiated based on bubbles, short-sightedness, and unsustainable business models and IMHO the current CBA is one of those things.
                      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


                      • #26
                        Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

                        No guaranteed contracts, eh? Hope you remember the damage players holding out use to have on their respective franchises. Granted, the NFL does have player protections like signing bonuses that lose their "pro-rated" status against the hard cap as soon as a player is cut. Meaning, when a player is given a signing bonus which is typical... That bonus amount is spread over the term of the contract in regards to the NFL hard cap, however if that player is cut....The total amount of that bonus is figured into the cap that that year he is released. Basically a poison pill for just cutting players of high caliber.

                        Personally, I AM for a hard cap, shorter contracts and a franchise tag to help some of the smaller & less then desirable markets out. Ultimately, I think the compromise will land somewhere near there. I just don't see the players taking the hit to current salaries in the form of anything greater than a 5% roll back if any at all. Granted, the players are going to hurt greater than the owners during the course of a lockout, but there are some owners that will feel the pinch of having to fulfill vendor contracts and building leases while they receive no gate or TV money for a season. Not every owner has the sweetheart set up that the Simons do with their municipally owned building.

                        That is the reason we don't have a hard cap now, certain owners like Glen Taylor in Minnesota were also being financially punished along with the players. In the '98 lockout... The owners dropped the hard cap to get the players to come back to the table.

                        As for the concept of pushing down player salaries to push down the cost to the fans.... That will always be a pipe dream. The owners will always charge what the market is willing to pay to be in the building. As for the league as a whole, super teams are what the LEAGUE (All owners) wants.... Remember, most of the money the owners make is made from TV revenue not the gate. Granted, we are fans of a team that doesn't fit the profile, so our view of league business is going to be skewed to that. I've come to find out most NBA fans, not Pacer fans are wanting these super teams. Believe it or not, there are a lot of these NBA fans that are right here in Indy... A lot of them share my demographic and they could care less about the Pacers as long as LeBron, Kobe, Amar'e, CP3, KG & Paul Pierce are on TV from week to week.

                        As far as the original question.... It's just Millionaires brawling with Billionaires and neither side really gives a **** about me... The Fan!
                        Last edited by Roaming Gnome; 02-21-2011, 07:47 AM.
                        ...Still "flying casual"
                        @roaminggnome74

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

                          Gnome,
                          Even though what you said runs counter to a lot of what I said, I don't disagree with you when it comes down to the realities of the situation.
                          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


                          • #28
                            Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

                            Both sides need to decide if the NBA is going to be a theatrical production or a sports league. The models and decisions on "fairness" are completely different.

                            As a fan, I vote for "sports league" and believe everything should be geared toward fair (but not excessive) salaries and profits that support (rather than hinder) the largest possible number of competitive teams.

                            However, I'm betting the big owners and superstar players are going for "entertainment", and they will win in the long run.
                            BillS

                            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

                              I don't believe that the majority of the owners in the league are hurting financially nearly as badly as they are leading people to believe.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Whose side are you on if there is a lockout

                                The owners. The maximum payments on players is so high right now that it could send team owners into bankruptcy.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X