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

New CBA (based on current proposals) vs Old CBA

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

  • #16
    Re: New CBA (based on current proposals) vs Old CBA

    Most people here seems to be in favor of a hard cap with no exceptions but isn't there a strong chance that it hurts the Pacers in the long run?

    -Hill and Hibbert are up for extensions after 12/13
    -Granger, Collison and Hansbrough the next year
    -Paul George the year after that.

    And add the salary of whatever free agent we sign with this year's cap space.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: New CBA (based on current proposals) vs Old CBA

      Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
      Most people here seems to be in favor of a hard cap with no exceptions but isn't there a strong chance that it hurts the Pacers in the long run?

      -Hill and Hibbert are up for extensions after 12/13
      -Granger, Collison and Hansbrough the next year
      -Paul George the year after that.

      And add the salary of whatever free agent we sign with this year's cap space.
      I wouldn't say a hard cap would hurt the Pacers more than any another team in general but yes I agree that it would hinder the Pacers' current strategy of building a deep young team. A hard cap would mean a lot more turnover, the positive of which is that bad teams could improve very fast in one offseason (as noted above) but the negative is that it will be almost impossible for teams to keep a talented core for very long. In the case of the Pacers we will be forced to select a few guys that we'll want to build around (Granger, FA, maybe Hibbert and George) and build the rest of the team from a revolving cast of whoever else we can afford. In fairness, this strategy worked out pretty well for the Spurs but we don't have a comparable quality core (Duncan, Ginobili, Parker) to build around.

      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
      Doesn't have to be a hard cap. Just quadruple the luxury tax.

      Instant revenue sharing.
      The problem with this is that revenue gets shared only when the rich teams go over the tax. So it's pretty much a license for rich teams to overspend - as Larry Coon pointed out for some teams (Knicks, Mavs, Lakers) it just became part of the cost of doing business. I would prefer revenue sharing based on what each team makes and not based on what each team spends. An alternative is revenue sharing based on market size which might be fairer to the teams who are more efficient in generating revenue.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: New CBA (based on current proposals) vs Old CBA

        I've mentioned a few times that I think a low hard cap with no wiggle room would actually end up hurting small market teams, contrary to the usual perception.

        My reasoning here is that small market teams generally have to overpay to either keep or attract talented players. If offered the same money, would a talented player prefer to play in NY or Indy? Now, the counter is that in a hard cap regime, teams like NY wouldn't be able to afford more than, say, 2 star players, leaving more talent for the rest of the league. The problem in the NBA though, is that there really aren't enough quality players to go around - in any given season there's only about 10-15 players who really matter - and now they will have a lot less incentive to stay with their small market teams (not that the current system is working very well in this regard). So NY ends up with Dwight Howard and Chris Paul as their star players, while Pacers possibly end up with say David West and Danny Granger as their "stars" - not exactly parity is it.

        I'm not 100% set against a hard cap though - I could see it working if say maximum salaries are removed (e.g. LeBron could take up 80% of the cap all by himself) which would really force a redistribution of elite talent. Still not enough stars to go around I think, but it would be better than the current situation.

        In general though, I think Bird rights (i.e. the ability to exceed the cap to sign your own free agent) is the small market team's best weapon, so taking that away in a hard cap is a no-no to me, unless there are other provisions to make up for it.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: New CBA (based on current proposals) vs Old CBA

          Think of the last several Superbowl winners is all you need to do. Green Bay, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, New England, Indy, I mean cold weather, small market or big market, it doesn't matter, its a level playing field.

          NFL is a good model, but its of note that the NFL has a much larger pie to split up, that sure makes it easier.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: New CBA (based on current proposals) vs Old CBA

            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
            In the case of the Pacers we will be forced to select a few guys that we'll want to build around (Granger, FA, maybe Hibbert and George) and build the rest of the team from a revolving cast of whoever else we can afford.
            Is this what people want to watch? This almost assuredly lowers the quality of play. In this scenario, rookie contracts also become drastically more valuable, so a lot of younger players will be playing more significant time (whether this is good or bad I'm not sure).

            I know this happens in football but it's tough to compare to football because there is no such thing as a bad football game as long as it's close. I, and most people I think, are just as happy watching a low scoring defensive match up in the NFL as long as it's a close game. Judging by the ratings for the Pistons-Spurs finals I don't think most people feel the same about the NBA. Bad basketball is more obvious to the casual viewer and hurts the leagues reputation as a whole.

            I'd be wary about wishing too hard for a no exceptions hard cap and would hold out hope for incentives for well managed teams: cap exemptions for a player extending with the team that drafted him, more incentive to stay with a team while still keeping free agency as an option for players.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: New CBA (based on current proposals) vs Old CBA

              I agree that at some point we would lose a good player under a hard cap that we won't be able to afford, and most likely every team will. You have to take the good with the bad. Under the current system we take the bad with the bad. I'd take a hard cap system over the current one.
              There are a lot of ways to bring about competitive balance that would work, but I think the hard cap is the single best change under the current proposal that would help us.
              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: New CBA (based on current proposals) vs Old CBA

                Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                Is this what people want to watch? This almost assuredly lowers the quality of play. In this scenario, rookie contracts also become drastically more valuable, so a lot of younger players will be playing more significant time (whether this is good or bad I'm not sure).
                I agree with you mostly. Like many others on the board, I am a fan of the late 90s Pacers - a veteran core of players who performed better than what their talent would indicate. That kind of team would be very difficult to replicate in a hard cap system.

                It's true though that building teams in that way takes a long time, and that the lean years could be very hard on the fanbase. Once you get a good situation going though, that sort of team can perform very well for many years. And the Pacers after some very bad years are on the verge of a good situation, which makes the current lockout all the more frustrating.

                Ironic isn't it? The Pacers have built up a team that could potentially be very good under the old CBA. Would the Pacers still retain those advantages under the rules of a new CBA? Some of you think yes, but I can't help feeling that the changes would strip away some of the advantages we've worked so long and hard for.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: New CBA (based on current proposals) vs Old CBA

                  Originally posted by Speed View Post
                  Think of the last several Superbowl winners is all you need to do. Green Bay, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, New England, Indy, I mean cold weather, small market or big market, it doesn't matter, its a level playing field.

                  NFL is a good model, but its of note that the NFL has a much larger pie to split up, that sure makes it easier.
                  But the NFL owners also have agreed to split up that very large pie equally amongst themselves.

                  The NBA owners have shown little to no interest in a revenue sharing system anywhere close to comparable to the NFL's.
                  "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                  -Lance Stephenson

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: New CBA (based on current proposals) vs Old CBA

                    Originally posted by troyc11a View Post
                    I was trying to make a similar point. I am glad you did. The Detroit Lions stunk last year but have a legit shot at making the playoffs this year. Cant do that in the NBA. Jumping from bottom feeder to contender takes years (see Indiana Pacers)
                    This is crazy talk. The Detriot Lions have stunk for over a decade. And every year you can say they have a shot at the playoffs AND I can say that about any bottom feeder team in the NBA. Any bottom feeder team can rise up a few spots and get the wildcard or 8th seed in the NBA.

                    Parity is so easy to define in the NFL for one reason only and that is the single elimination tournament. In this format it is possible for the best teams to lose any given sunday. Very rarely does one team ever go from complete ineptitude suckfest to contender in one season. If you look at the last decade you will see the same handful of teams in the NFL jockeying for the championship, and you'll have a few outside teams getting in every year, but the usual faces have been there and thats because of their franchise QBs.

                    Infact one could argue that parity lessening in the NFL in recent years with teams going 14-2 on a regular basis and actual real shots at going 16-0 if they tried.
                    Last edited by graphic-er; 08-17-2011, 12:46 AM.
                    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: New CBA (based on current proposals) vs Old CBA

                      Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                      Very rarely does one team ever go from complete ineptitude suckfest to contender in one season. If you look at the last decade you will see the same handful of teams in the NFL jockeying for the championship, and you'll have a few outside teams getting in every year, but the usual faces have been there and thats because of their franchise QBs.

                      Infact one could argue that parity lessening in the NFL in recent years with teams going 14-2 on a regular basis and actual real shots at going 16-0 if they tried.
                      Actually it is more common to see a team go from suckage to great over night than you would think. They Colts were the first team to do this in a major way going from 3-13 to 13-3. Since than there have been 3 or 4 teams who have achieved similar results. You are right though it isn't common to go from complete suckage to greatness the next, but going from bad (5 or 6 wins) to competing for a championship happens in most seasons. Of course no system can make up for a complete failure of management like in Detroit, but that has little to do with the system and everything to do with bad management.

                      While yes there have been two or three teams (NE, Indy, Pitt) who have consistently been near the top the reason they have been near the top is because of great management, not because of a market advantage. Even then Pitt hasn't been consistent with competing. The rest though really has fluctuated a lot. Yeah teams will be good for 2 or 3 seasons then fall back down, and maybe rebound but so is the majority of the league.

                      Teams going 14-2 has more to do with dilution of talent on most teams. When you have a team that is able to accumulate the kind of talent that matches the pre-salary cap era it is going to be easy for them to dominate as it isn't likely any other team will have equal talent as there would have been before. At the same time though it is much tougher to keep that talent together, than it was in the past. You might have that talent all together for one or two seasons then you fall back down to an equal playing level as you are not able to afford all of that talent.

                      Teams like the Cowboys and 49ers who were traditionally great teams year in and year out haven't been because they can no longer just spend their way to the top. Mean while a traditionally ****** team, and a traditionally mediocre team have risen to the top because they have better management. That is the goal of a hard cap, is to make it not about being able to outspend your competition, but make it about who is actually better at what they do. So instead of the Lakers being able to stay at or near the top basically since they moved to LA (except for the 90's) because they can afford to out spend Milwaukee, no matter who how bad or good management is, if Milwaukee had the better management Milwaukee would consistently have a better team because they manage their team better. The hard cap is there to make it about the skill, not the money.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: New CBA (based on current proposals) vs Old CBA

                        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                        In general though, I think Bird rights (i.e. the ability to exceed the cap to sign your own free agent) is the small market team's best weapon, so taking that away in a hard cap is a no-no to me, unless there are other provisions to make up for it.
                        If small markets were the only teams who got those rights then you would be right, but since the larger markets get the exact same ability and are in a better position to take advantage of that ability the Bird rights do not help the smaller markets in any way. In fact it is more likely it hurts those markets as players know that if they take a smaller deal now, in the future they can get a much larger deal than they ever could get in a small market.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: New CBA (based on current proposals) vs Old CBA

                          New proposals...

                          50/50 split of the BRI.
                          Hard cap at $45 MIL.

                          http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/68...r-unacceptable

                          I don't know about anyone else, but a $45 MIL hard cap is too low for my taste. I think a hard cap that low would hurt the Pacers, since it would leave the Pacers with enough money to sign one good FA.

                          EDIT: That's WAY too low. Indiana already has a salary of $36MIL.


                          Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: New CBA (based on current proposals) vs Old CBA

                            New proposals...

                            50/50 split of the BRI.
                            Hard cap at $45 MIL.

                            http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/68...r-unacceptable

                            I don't know about anyone else, but a $45 MIL hard cap is too low for my taste. I think a hard cap that low would hurt the Pacers, since it would leave the Pacers with enough money to sign one good FA.

                            EDIT: That's WAY too low. Indiana already has a salary of $36MIL.
                            These are not new proposals. Those are actually a muddled statement of the owners' original proposal.

                            The most recent owners' proposal had a "flex" cap of $62mm, with a hard cap somewhere above that, speculated to be around $72mm or so.

                            There have been no new proposals, and there won't be any until either NLRB rules or it becomes time to cancel games.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: New CBA (based on current proposals) vs Old CBA

                              Originally posted by count55 View Post
                              These are not new proposals. Those are actually a muddled statement of the owners' original proposal.

                              The most recent owners' proposal had a "flex" cap of $62mm, with a hard cap somewhere above that, speculated to be around $72mm or so.

                              There have been no new proposals, and there won't be any until either NLRB rules or it becomes time to cancel games.
                              Thanks for the correction, and someone needs to tell Kevin Love to stop talking .


                              Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X