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

My idea for an NBA franchise tag..."The Big 3 Rule"

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

  • My idea for an NBA franchise tag..."The Big 3 Rule"

    I've been thinking, and the idea of player basically putting together their own superteams in the exotic markets is probably bad for business, long-term. That said, I don't think teams should be able to lock players up for their entire careers. Even the NFL, which pioneered the franchise tag, doesn't allow for that. The NFL simply allows teams to raise the price of their best free agent so high that in most cases the compensation outweighs the player given up.

    With that in mind, here's my submission: I call it, "the big three rule."

    -The rule stipulates that any team may place a 1-year tag on its own unrestricted free agent.

    -Player is guaranteed a 1-year contract worth %110 of his maximum pay raise under normal circumstances, but may negotiate an extension or sign-and-trade with his current club.

    -Player may sign anywhere of his choosing.

    -Should a tagged player sign elsewhere, his former club is entitled to either the next available 1st round pick from the team signing him, or any player currently under contract with the team signing him.

    -Any team signing a tagged player may protect one player on its current roster.

    -Teams are restricted to signing one tagged player per season. Likewise, teams are restricted to tagging one player per season.

    -A player playing under a tagged contract would have the ability to veto any trade.


    How did I come to this conclusion? I don't have as much of an issue with big twos as i do big threes. This rule allows for duos to join forces, but not trios. Teams can't game the system anymore by simply scheming so all their contracts to expire at the same time, and using the cap space to sign multiple superstars. It also prevents players from using free agency as leverage to force a trade.

    The irony is, this rule would not have prevented Carmelo Anthony from going to New York. In fact, Denver got more compensation that it could have expected by losing him outright via free agency. Now, should the Knicks plan on signing Deron Williams or Chris Paul in the future, they will have to lose Carmelo or Amare to get the deal done.

    The rule encourages teams to build solid role players around one or two stars, instead of signing a big 3 and fielding a roster of minimum-wagers. It benefits mid-level players, because there will be more money left over to give. It also does not totally prevent teams from building a team of stars via trade, as Boston did.

    Likewise, only teams with actual franchise-changing stars are going to want to exercise this rule. When Roy Hibbert is up for free agency, would the Pacers opt to allow him to test the waters, or pay him Dwight Howard money every year?

    This rule would specifically be in place for the Miamis and New Yorks of the NBA, and nobody else. It would encourage bad teams to get better, and discourage good teams from stockpiling superstars. Any team with more than two stars would have built through the draft or trade markets.
    Last edited by Kstat; 02-23-2011, 09:25 AM.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

  • #2
    Re: My idea for an NBA franchise tag..."The Big 3 Rule"

    You're just adding on an expensive team option to the end of every contract. It's all gain for teams with players in their first three years when the maximum salaries are extremely low.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: My idea for an NBA franchise tag..."The Big 3 Rule"

      ...except players in their first three years are generally restricted. This rule would apply to unrestricted free agents only. It would go hand in hand with Bird rights.
      Last edited by Kstat; 02-23-2011, 08:20 AM.

      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


      • #4
        Re: My idea for an NBA franchise tag..."The Big 3 Rule"

        Very creative.

        So explain how this works -- let's say Udonis Haslem is going to be a free agent on this current team, and Miami slaps him with the 1-year tag. Haslem then is due to make 110% of his raise on a 1-year contract, and is able to negotiate with other teams. So he decides to sign with the Lakers. That means the Heat could get Kobe Bryant?

        It seems your system could be gamed the opposite way.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: My idea for an NBA franchise tag..."The Big 3 Rule"

          Originally posted by MTM View Post
          Very creative.

          So explain how this works -- let's say Udonis Haslem is going to be a free agent on this current team, and Miami slaps him with the 1-year tag. Haslem then is due to make 110% of his raise on a 1-year contract, and is able to negotiate with other teams. So he decides to sign with the Lakers. That means the Heat could get Kobe Bryant?

          It seems your system could be gamed the opposite way.
          Yes, that's possible. But LA would never do that in Kstat's system. They would have to leave Kobe unprotected and still decide to sign Haslem even though he was tagged.

          Teams with more than one good player wouldn't go after a tagged player on the level of Haslem.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: My idea for an NBA franchise tag..."The Big 3 Rule"

            Originally posted by MTM View Post
            Very creative.

            So explain how this works -- let's say Udonis Haslem is going to be a free agent on this current team, and Miami slaps him with the 1-year tag. Haslem then is due to make 110% of his raise on a 1-year contract, and is able to negotiate with other teams. So he decides to sign with the Lakers. That means the Heat could get Kobe Bryant?

            It seems your system could be gamed the opposite way.
            Ok, first, Haslem wouldn't but due just %110 of his current salary. He'd be due %110 of his MAXIMUM raise. In other words, he'd be making %110 of what he would normally make in year 1 of a max contract. He'd be making better than what Chris Bosh is making. You think Miami would be willing to pay Udonis Haslem $16 million just to keep him?

            The %110 clause is to prevent teams from tagging role players, or simply tagging the same star player year after year to avoid being tied up to a long-term max contract.

            Second, LA would be able to protect Kobe under the rule, but they would risk losing either Pau Gasol or Bynum. Of course, knowing the risk, why would they even consider signing him?
            Last edited by Kstat; 02-23-2011, 09:02 AM.

            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


            • #7
              Re: My idea for an NBA franchise tag..."The Big 3 Rule"

              At first glance at least, I like it. It would lessen the effectiveness of a player in Carmelo's situation using free agency as a weapon but still allow a player like that to go somewhere else if he wants. It would give teams an opportunity to hold on to their star players (or at least get more in return) without allowing them to completely restrict movement. Seems like a pretty good balance

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: My idea for an NBA franchise tag..."The Big 3 Rule"

                That's a very interesting proposal.

                I like it. Front office chess

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: My idea for an NBA franchise tag..."The Big 3 Rule"

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  ...except players in their first three years are generally restricted. This rule would apply to unrestricted free agents only. It would go hand in hand with Bird rights.
                  So you'll have restricted free agency AND a franchise tag for unrestricted FA? Expect some hold outs from your star players.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: My idea for an NBA franchise tag..."The Big 3 Rule"

                    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                    So you'll have restricted free agency AND a franchise tag for unrestricted FA? Expect some hold outs from your star players.
                    sucks for them. Every month they hold out, they lose $3-4 million.

                    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


                    • #11
                      Re: My idea for an NBA franchise tag..."The Big 3 Rule"

                      This deserves some consideration for a post award. It is creative, without any sort of unnecessary debates about coaching preferences, and makes a lot of sense.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: My idea for an NBA franchise tag..."The Big 3 Rule"

                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        sucks for them. Every month they hold out, they lose $3-4 million.
                        I'm not sure how well "sucks for them" would go over at a CBA bargaining table.

                        I like the idea of stronger incentives to help a team keep star players, but it gets tricky when you handcuff unrestricted free agents. At a certain point, you have to acknowledge that players have the right to change teams when they've finished their contracts even if fans don't like it.

                        Why not just make the financial incentives stronger for a player to stay with their team? LeBron and Bosh went to Miami because they only lost about $5 mil a year. What if it had been $10 mil a year?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: My idea for an NBA franchise tag..."The Big 3 Rule"

                          This would be a huuuuggge concession from the Player's Union. Unrestricted free agency was one of their first key victories, now you're clawing it back with a quasi-restricted limbo arrangement tagged on to every player's contract.

                          And while "sucks for them" does feel good to say, I think one of the worst aspects of these franchise tag systems is that they restrict player choice, lead to hold-outs, and force us to listen to endless months of off-court drama from the the league's divas. For example, I actually much prefer the NBA's system to the NFL's.

                          I agree with King Tut's Tomb, it makes more sense to strengthen Bird Rights than to shackle unrestricted free agency. If guys want to take massive pay cuts to play for certain teams it makes more sense to let them than to artificially force them to play for terrible teams and terrible situations, where they'll be unhappy and fill Sportscenter with inane contract disputes.
                          2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: My idea for an NBA franchise tag..."The Big 3 Rule"

                            First, the rule would only restrict %1 of the union, and benefit the other %99. It wouldn't be a huge concession at all.

                            Second, tagged NBA players would get even more money than tagged NFL players. It would be absurd for them to pass up the biggest paychecks of their careers.

                            The players' union will not be heavily against a rule that's only going t be implemented on maybe 2-3 players per summer out of 350+.

                            Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post

                            Why not just make the financial incentives stronger for a player to stay with their team? LeBron and Bosh went to Miami because they only lost about $5 mil a year. What if it had been $10 mil a year?
                            If the last summer has taught us anything it should have be that these players make so much money that $5-10 million makes no difference.

                            Originally posted by bulldog View Post
                            I think one of the worst aspects of these franchise tag systems is that they restrict player choice, lead to hold-outs, and force us to listen to endless months of off-court drama from the the league's divas. For example, I actually much prefer the NBA's system to the NFL's.
                            ...and that's different from the LeBron and Carmelo situations...how?

                            The only difference is now players don't even wait until free agency to start drama. This would even the playing field and take away their leverage.
                            Last edited by Kstat; 02-23-2011, 04:29 PM.

                            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


                            • #15
                              Re: My idea for an NBA franchise tag..."The Big 3 Rule"

                              hmm, i like this idea.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X