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

Details on latest cba proposal

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 4
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
  • #1

    Details on latest cba proposal

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=6530352

    The proposal from NBA owners that the NBA Players Association rejected last week called for the implementation of a hard salary cap at a figure lower than the league's current cap, but not until the 2013-14 season, according to sources familiar with the offer.


    Sources told ESPN.com this week that the central change made by owners to past collective bargaining proposals called for easing in a more restrictive financial landscape over a three-season cycle as opposed to trying to impose a hard salary ceiling with immediate effect next season.


    The league, sources said, regards this as a major concession, since the next two seasons would employ a salary-cap system with luxury-tax penalties not unlike the system currently in place. Teams currently operate with a salary cap of $58 million per franchise, with a dollar-for-dollar luxury tax imposed for every dollar teams spend over the tax threshold of $70.3 million.


    Sources said the owners' latest proposal, however, does still call for immediate rollbacks of 15 percent, 20 percent or 25 percent to current contracts depending on salary levels, as part of the league's oft-stated desire to reduce payroll by roughly $800 million leaguewide on an annual basis.


    The NBA's ongoing push for such sharp salary reductions, sources said, is what caused the quick rejection from the players' side, with the union also still determined to oppose a hard cap.


    The NBA, sources said, likewise hopes to implement even lower salaries for rookies than they currently make based off the league's rookie scale The league also would like to propose new rules that make it hugely advantageous for marquee players to stay with the teams that draft them.


    The new rules would grant teams the ability to offer even more years and dollars to a designated "star" player than current rules allow, heeding the clamor from various small-market teams for such a measure after last summer's free-agent defections of LeBron James and Chris Bosh to Miami and the trades that sent Carmelo Anthony to New York and Deron Williams to New Jersey.


    An SI.com report Wednesday said that teams, under the NBA's proposal, would not be able to unilaterally "tag" a player to be their designated star, as NFL teams can by using their "franchise tag" to prevent one chosen player from becoming a free agent. Under the NBA's proposal rejected by the union last week, teams would only be able to designate one player for preferential contract treatment if the player agreed to it.


    Another key wrinkle from the rejected proposal, sources said, called for the ability for each team to shed one contract outright before next season through a one-time amnesty provision that wipes that contract off a team's books -- even though the player must still be paid -- reminiscent of a similar provision in the summer of 2005.


    Although the players quickly rejected last week's proposal, sources close to the process have expressed mild optimism about the league's increased willingness to negotiate before the current labor agreement expires June 30.


    ESPN.com's Henry Abbott reported Tuesday that Stern and NBPA executive director Billy Hunter have been quietly meeting face-to-face to negotiate on a fairly regular basis. The sides, sources said, met last week in Chicago with staffers from both sides present. The two sides are also set to talk this week in New York.


    NBA owners are expected to lock out their players on July 1 if there is no new deal before the June 30 deadline. But against a backdrop of labor strife and ongoing legal action in the NFL, representatives of both the NBA and the players' union have recently softened their public rhetoric.
    NBA deputy commissioner Adam Silver said April 15 that the league's goal is "a system in which all 30 teams can compete, and, if they are well-managed, to make a profit. We have never suggested to the union that there's only one way to accomplish that end."


    But players' association president Derek Fisher of the Los Angeles Lakers, explaining the union's quick dismissal of the league's latest offer, told ESPN.com last week: "Unfortunately, the proposal is very similar to the proposal the league submitted over a year ago. This last proposal doesn't look close to what we were expecting."


    The union has pushed for a revenue deal similar to the current one, with Hunter insisting that a hard salary cap would effectively end guaranteed contracts, which he calls "the lifeblood" of professional basketball.


    "We've had that right for years, and it's not something we're trying to give up," Hunter has said.


    The league recently announced that, in addition to soaring TV ratings this season, 2010-2011 ticket sales were up roughly one percent. The union contends that the league's recent surge in popularity might have wiped out the losses caused by the recent recession, but league officials say that their overall loss has been reduced only from $340 million last season to $300 million this season, asserting that 22 of the NBA's 30 teams are losing money.
    Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Details on latest cba proposal

    I wonder if the players' union is pushing for a minimum salary level (basement cap) to compensate for the hard cap?

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Details on latest cba proposal

      Have the players come up with ANY proposals? I'm asking because myabe they have but I haven't seen them. So far all I've seen is proposals by the league that are rejected by the players.
      A healthy man takes a crap every day. A smart man does it on company time.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Details on latest cba proposal

        I haven't seen this posted yet.
        I like the idea of the cap being lower then the current soft cap instead of the LT threshold. IMO the lower the cap, the easier it will be to compete for players and the harder is will be for deep pocket teams to stockpile multiple superstars.
        I don't see players salaries getting rolled back as proposed.
        If the cap takes 2 years to implement that changes they way we need to look at our current cap space.
        The amnesty clause is something I thought they'd offer to get teams under the cap quicker. We could see a lot of bargains floating around at the start of the season if this happens.
        I know these are only proposals and none of these proposals may make it into the next cba. I'm glad we have to wait until the new cba is in place to spend any of our cap space. Changes like this give the Pacers a lot to consider before spending and may create a lot of opportunities that we didn't expect to be there.
        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Details on latest cba proposal

          What do the players think about the 22 of 30 NBA teams losing money? What do the players expect that they would have to give up going into this deal. Do they really think it should all go on business as usual?

          At some point there has to be a collective recognition that the league is not sustainable the way they like it.
          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Details on latest cba proposal

            If a cap like this makes it in and player salary rollbacks don't then Miami would be playing 3 on 5 by the 13/14 season since the big 3 combine for 58 million at that point. Obviously they'd have to be broken up in that scenerio.
            Whatever happens I think any reduction to a hard salary cap will result in an Amnesty player clause. I wouldn't expect any all stars to be waived but some teams may be forced to trade away some great talent, and you could see some starting quality players available. I can't remember how it worked that last time with the Allan Houston rule. Where waived players available for the vet min. to their new team?
            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Details on latest cba proposal

              Young talent on rookie contracts and cap space become more valuable.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Details on latest cba proposal

                Originally posted by Manguera View Post
                Have the players come up with ANY proposals? I'm asking because myabe they have but I haven't seen them. So far all I've seen is proposals by the league that are rejected by the players.
                There haven't been that many proposals actually. This is the same one that has been reported before. There have been 2 formal offers from the owners, and one counter proposal from the players. Unsurprisingly, the players' proposal is to keep the current system in place. I think the players' concession is to reduce their 57% share of BRI to 51%, which represents a $200-300m reduction in player salaries. The owners however are looking for cutbacks of ~$800m, as well as a new system in place (hard cap, unguaranteed contracts, etc). It's pretty clear that closing the gap on this isn't going to be easy.

                As far as the Pacers are concerned, salary rollbacks and amnesty clauses wouldn't benefit us at all. We've gone through 3 painful years of housecleaning, and as a result we're fresh out of overpaid players. If anything, an amnesty clause helps the teams in cap hell that we were planning to take advantage of in uneven trades.

                It's true though that an amnesty clause could add a few quality free agents to the market, like Michael Finley the last time there was an amnesty clause. More likely though, it will be the likes of Rashard Lewis, Gilbert Arenas, Baron Davis.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Details on latest cba proposal

                  Just for interest, this is the list of amnesty players from 2005

                  http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q18

                  Originally posted by Larry Coon
                  Although the amnesty provision was informally referred to as the "Allan Houston provision," the Knicks chose not to use it on Houston. The actual list of players on whom the amnesty provision was used is (* = players who were previously waived): Derek Anderson (Blazers), Vin Baker* (Celtics), Troy Bell* (Grizzlies), Calvin Booth (Bucks), Doug Christie (Magic), Derrick Coleman* (Pistons), Howard Eisley* (Suns), Michael Finley (Mavericks), Brian Grant (Lakers), Fred Hoiberg (Timberwolves), Aaron McKie (76ers), Ron Mercer (Nets), Reggie Miller* (Pacers), Alonzo Mourning* (Raptors), Wesley Person* (Heat), Eddie Robinson* (Bulls), Clarence Weatherspoon (Rockets), Jerome Williams (Knicks). The Bobcats, Cavs, Clippers, Hawks, Hornets, Jazz, Kings, Nuggets, Sonics, Spurs, Warriors and Wizards did not utilize this provision.
                  Yes, the Pacers waived Reggie Miller, but he had retired by then. In fact, most teams chose to use the amnesty rule on previously waived players. Finley was the best I think among the amnesty casualties.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Details on latest cba proposal

                    Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                    What do the players think about the 22 of 30 NBA teams losing money? What do the players expect that they would have to give up going into this deal. Do they really think it should all go on business as usual?

                    At some point there has to be a collective recognition that the league is not sustainable the way they like it.
                    At this point the players are on record as believing the losses are paper (depreciation) or involving expenses unrelated to operations (interest on loans for purchasing the franchise).

                    I suspect the toughness from the owners is about to dissipate in a blast of sound and fury, signifying nothing, as we go forward essentially unchanged into the brave new world of 4-6 super teams and 24-26 Washington Generals.
                    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

                    • #11
                      Re: Details on latest cba proposal

                      The player's willingness to cut back the player share of the BRI from 57% to 51% is a good sign. That seems to indicate the disagreement is not about whether to cut the player share, but how much to cut. Something like that would reduce the salary cap to about $50M, the luxury tax level to $60M.

                      I expect something close to those numbers as the final settlement. A salary cap of about $50M with the luxury tax starting imediately. and a hard cap of between $60M and $70M. In either case, teams with big salaries will have to cut guys to get under the new hard cap.

                      that soft-cap/hard-cap arrangement will allow the continuation of exceptions like the MLE, but only up to a certain amount. Players want the exceptions to avoid having teams with 3 max salaries and 10 minimum salaries. The immediate luxury tax provides a kind of revenue sharing that the NBAPA wants in the contract.

                      Pacers [and other teams under the $50M salary cap number should be able to get some good players for cheap.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Details on latest cba proposal

                        We have to understand why the teams are losing 300m. Is it a couple losing 40% of that number? Or is it that of the 22 teams losing money 80% average the same amount, making up 90% of the losses?

                        If it is the former, I seriously doubt the players are responsible for poor management. If it is the latter then the players need to concede a little more.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Details on latest cba proposal

                          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                          As far as the Pacers are concerned, salary rollbacks and amnesty clauses wouldn't benefit us at all. We've gone through 3 painful years of housecleaning, and as a result we're fresh out of overpaid players. If anything, an amnesty clause helps the teams in cap hell that we were planning to take advantage of in uneven trades.
                          QFT. Thanks league, one year too late.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Details on latest cba proposal

                            Originally posted by MyFavMartin View Post
                            I wonder if the players' union is pushing for a minimum salary level (basement cap) to compensate for the hard cap?
                            There already is one, at $44M. Any team under that amount has to pay their roster the difference, as the Kings had to do.

                            Originally posted by Major Cold
                            We have to understand why the teams are losing 300m. Is it a couple losing 40% of that number? Or is it that of the 22 teams losing money 80% average the same amount, making up 90% of the losses?

                            If it is the former, I seriously doubt the players are responsible for poor management. If it is the latter then the players need to concede a little more.
                            I don't know about the other teams, but the Pacers claimed $30M in losses during the CIB negotiations.
                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Details on latest cba proposal

                              Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                              We have to understand why the teams are losing 300m. Is it a couple losing 40% of that number? Or is it that of the 22 teams losing money 80% average the same amount, making up 90% of the losses?
                              The NBA doesn't release this info, but Forbes does have an independent estimate:

                              http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/32/...s-11_rank.html

                              Check out the operating income column. These figures don't include depreciation or loan servicing though, which the league apparently includes in its calculations.

                              And yes, the depreciation/loan costs are a pretty large component, because adding up Forbes' figures gives a $180m profit, versus the $300m loss the league is claiming.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
                              Working...
                              X