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

AMNESTY

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

  • #16
    Re: AMNESTY

    I think that if a team takes advantage of the Amensty they can not add another player cut under the Amensty rule. Or a team that that has signed a player cut under the rule ,and has not used the rule themselves, should not have that newly signed player count against the cap/luxury tax.

    No more rewarding the frivolous and the big markets for being frivolous.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: AMNESTY

      Originally posted by wintermute View Post
      I think teams are wary of waiving useful players no matter what their contracts are like. Amnesty doesn't mean the contract just goes away - the player still gets paid after all, it's just that the team gets more room to maneuver under the salary cap rules. So the list of free agents coming from the amnesty clause may not be as attractive as we hope.

      I'm not even sure that the Pacers would use the amnesty clause on Posey - we'd lose the use of his expiring contract in trade, AND we'd still have to pay him. Granted, we may find ourselves needing the extra cap space if we have a FA or trade target in the works. But otherwise it might not be worth it.
      Yes, I agree.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: AMNESTY

        This isn't a positive, this is a negative.
        Firstly, we have no bad contracts, we also have no long contracts, so we do not gain the extra cap out of this.
        Secondly, our advantage this summer has been cap space... Now everyone will have some cap space, which means more competition over the not very good free agents available this summer.
        Thirdly, these players are all junk. Atlanta won't waive JJ, Memphis won't waive Gay, Philly won't waive Iggy. Players that get waived have 0% trade value, that's why they get waived and not traded. Most of these players are basically bench role players who will probably go to a contender for low salary. We do not need them.

        If this amnesty thing goes on... we're in trouble in my opinion.
        Originally posted by Piston Prince
        Bobcat fans telling us to cheer up = epic fail season
        "Josh Smith Re-building the city of Detroit one brick at a time"

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: AMNESTY

          Originally posted by yoadknux View Post
          This isn't a positive, this is a negative.
          Firstly, we have no bad contracts, we also have no long contracts, so we do not gain the extra cap out of this.
          Secondly, our advantage this summer has been cap space... Now everyone will have some cap space, which means more competition over the not very good free agents available this summer.
          Thirdly, these players are all junk. Atlanta won't waive JJ, Memphis won't waive Gay, Philly won't waive Iggy. Players that get waived have 0% trade value, that's why they get waived and not traded. Most of these players are basically bench role players who will probably go to a contender for low salary. We do not need them.

          If this amnesty thing goes on... we're in trouble in my opinion.
          We don't know if the amensty covers amensty from a future luxury cap only, a current level luxury cap only, a future salary cap, or the current salary cap.

          If they lower the luxury and salary cap, and the amnesty is applicable towards both, our cap space loses value.

          If they lower the luxury and salary cap, and the amnesty is applicable to the luxury tax only, our cap space loses little value. But the market will change nonetheless.

          The league needs the smaller market teams, so the provisions in the next CBA need to account for the productivity of such teams.

          What we don't need is relief for the ones that can afford to make mistake after mistake. Relief for all, sure. But they need to make sure those who have cleaned up their act fiscally, are rewarded in proportion to the relief of the frivolous.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: AMNESTY

            If the Pacers are under the cap, they might not even be able to use the amnesty provision. They would probably have to sign some players first and then use the provision to waive Posey or they may not even use it at all depending on what free agents show interest in signing with the Pacers.

            This could turn out to be a negative thing unless a team is able to use the Amnesty and only pay the player for that 1 season and the rest of their deal is retracted. I doubt the players will agree to something like that so it's unlikely that a team like Orlando or Washington would use the Amnesty on a player that they would have to continue paying at least a portion of their huge deal for 2-3 years.

            Rumor has it that they want to phase a hard cap into place over the next 3 seasons and have it cap at 70 million 3 years from now. Teams might not be in a hurry to trim salary this summer but in the follow summers.

            Ultimately, the guys that will probably be waived using an Amnesty provision will be injured and overpaid guys like Desagna Diop. IOW, guys the Pacers will have little interest in signing.
            Last edited by naptownmenace; 05-17-2011, 09:39 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: AMNESTY

              Once again, we must not spend our money...just to spend it.


              Comment


              • #22
                Re: AMNESTY

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                Once again, we must not spend our money...just to spend it.
                Corey Magette, Drew Gooden, Charlie Villnueva, Ben Gordon, Travis Outlaw, all disagree with this philosphy.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: AMNESTY

                  Originally posted by Speed View Post
                  Corey Magette, Drew Gooden, Charlie Villnueva, Ben Gordon, Travis Outlaw, all disagree with this philosphy.
                  This is exactly what scares me about free agency. I'm hoping that the Pacers don't make the same mistake and over pay for a marginal player like Detroit, Milwaukee, and NJ have recently.

                  What's funny is that each of these players name came up in the article as being Amnesty victims.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: AMNESTY

                    If Brandon Roy is amnestied, or bought out, would you take a chance on him?

                    http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/ore...s_brandon.html

                    The $68 million question is apparently about to get a new answer. Which is only to say that the Trail Blazers Inc. brain trust wants to float a new notion for Brandon Roy.

                    It's this: Retirement, old pal?

                    I hope they duck when they ask him.

                    A source familiar with the situation said Thursday that Portland figures it must deal with Roy's future if it's truly going to rejoin the league's contenders. Retirement for Roy is among the options they're considering.

                    The Blazers know they hold the distinction of being the only team in the Western Conference that hasn't won a first-round playoff series in the past 10 years. So they're eager and acting with urgency.

                    There are only three viable options when it comes to Roy's future: A) figure out where he fits and play him; B) set him free with the Amnesty Clause; or C) lure him into retirement.

                    They see three options.

                    I see only one.

                    Roy told me on the day of his season exit interview that he'd spend the summer healing, getting stronger and resting his knees. He wondered what coming back healthier would mean. Also, he planned to do platelet-rich plasma therapy again this summer, hoping it would help his knees.

                    It's worth giving the guy the offseason, and potentially a lockout, to see how his body responds. Sorry, but I can't forget the 18 points he scored in the fourth quarter of Game 4 during the Mavericks playoff series. They weren't accidental, and so blowing him up with the Amnesty Clause, or asking him to retire don't feel like wise decisions.

                    The league's Amnesty Clause would set Roy free, as the organization once did with Derek Anderson. The Blazers would still pay Roy what they owe him over the next four seasons, but they wouldn't pay luxury tax on his salary. It could potentially save owner Paul Allen millions, but wouldn't necessarily result in salary-cap room unless a new collective bargaining agreement stipulated such.

                    Retirement sounds lovely. I don't blame the Blazers for wondering about sending Roy to Boca Raton, Fla. (I'm thinking Darius Miles probably has a place there from when Portland attempted to send him there three years ago.) But it feels like a pipe dream.

                    If Roy voluntarily retires, he forgoes his salary and can't return to the NBA for one season. I don't see that happening. But if the three-time All-Star were forced to retire for medical reasons (a league-appointed physician would have to rule Roy is medically unfit), there's an interesting loophole. With Roy medically retired, the Blazers could potentially get salary-cap relief after a one-year waiting period.

                    I asked Rich Cho what they planned to do with Roy just 48 hours before the general manager was fired by Allen. He didn't answer, but he laughed nervously. I could feel him shaking his head at the mistake that the Vulcans made in negotiating a contract that had no insurance and no clauses for the possibility of injury despite Roy's chronic knee issues.

                    You can't reasonably predict what the Blazers will do. There's a fracture between the smart, hard-working people who run the day-to-day operations at One Center Court and the wild-eyed schemers who call the shots from the circle around Allen.

                    Me?

                    I don't for a second believe that Roy will retire. I don't think he believes he's done, nor would any physician who examined him. Again, Game 4. Period. End of discussion. But I do believe that Roy's pride is the true wildcard.

                    I still believe Roy can play at a high enough level to make keeping him worthwhile. I believe developing a new role for him is not only the best option, but also the only option. He'd be overpaid in each of the next four seasons, but at the very least they'd get something in return.

                    But I don't think the Blazers view Roy as part of the plan, and given that they're married to him, they seem intent on trying to do something dramatic. And maybe, foolish.

                    Roy won't want to be in Portland if he's not wanted. He could barely stomach the idea of seeing Patty Mills and Rudy Fernandez coming off the bench before him in Game 2 against Dallas. So, I'm thinking that if the Blazers really do want out they're going to have to tell Roy they don't want him around anymore.

                    We're probably talking buyout now, not retirement. Roy would get a lump sum and the freedom to seek a new team, if he could find another soul willing to believe in him. Since Roy has four years remaining on his contract, any buyout amount would be divided by four and that number would count against the Blazers' salary cap moving forward.

                    Have the Blazers turned gamblers? Are they really willing to give up on Roy while he's promising to come back even better? Could they really justify buying him out given Roy's output in Games 3 and 4 played the biggest role in saving Portland from a first-round sweep by the Mavericks?

                    Answer those questions. Then, tell me how insulting the guy with the idea of retirement or a buyout helps this franchise move forward. Because the worst case here is to devalue Roy, and insult him to his face, then have him show up in camp, where you ask him to help you win games.

                    Then again, this is Portland -- on a decade-long streak without a playoff series win.

                    Maybe that really is the plan.


                    --John Canzano
                    twitter.com/johncanzanobft

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: AMNESTY

                      If he wants to backup Paul George, sure.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: AMNESTY

                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        If he wants to backup Paul George, sure.
                        If he's anywhere near back up to speed, he's more than a bench player.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: AMNESTY

                          God, the more I think about the possibility of amnesty, the more upset I get as a Pacers fan. We had to endure years of this, we finally decided to just wait the bad contracts out, so what might happen? The second we're in excellent financial shape, the other teams all get a ****ing bailout. If this happens, the Pacers, and any other team in similar shape, gets royally screwed.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: AMNESTY

                            Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
                            If he's anywhere near back up to speed, he's more than a bench player.
                            They wouldn't let him go, and the word retirement wouldn't be floating around, if he was anywhere near back up to speed.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: AMNESTY

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              God, the more I think about the possibility of amnesty, the more upset I get as a Pacers fan. We had to endure years of this, we finally decided to just wait the bad contracts out, so what might happen? The second we're in excellent financial shape, the other teams all get a ****ing bailout. If this happens, the Pacers, and any other team in similar shape, gets royally screwed.
                              Orlando greatly benefits, but I was just thinking of Cleveland too.

                              They traded for Baron Davis' contract and got the #1 overall (2.6% chance), now they can amnesty him. I know they still have to pay him, but still, they get #1 and retain even more cap room. Nice move by Cleveland.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: AMNESTY

                                Does the amnesty impact the salary cap? I thought it only meant the owners wouldn't have to pay the luxury tax.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X